6 ms·

Facebook should be receiving some of the same scrutiny parler did. Improve moderation or get out

dcolkitt 6y ago
Unlike Parler, Facebook hosts its own metal. Beyond that it even owns its own domain registrar, CDN, and CA authority. There's no feasible way to deplatform it. (A good thing IMO, I just wish that same rock solid resistance to censorship was available to everybody.)
- MR4D 6y ago
  Apple and Google could effectively de-platform them in a day.
  - dylan604 6y ago
    could they? their .com site would still work. their .onion site would still work. sure, people would bitch about not having native app any more, but unless Apple/Googs rolled an OS update to block specific .com traffic, then people could still access it via website.
  - nradov 6y ago
    Apple and Google are already facing antitrust action. Politically they can't afford to make an enemy of Facebook right now.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- uniqueid 6y ago
  Probably doesn't feel like a good thing when you're hiding under your bed, hoping the angry mob will tire of searching, and move on with their machetes to the next village.
  - zarkov99 6y ago
    Which of the mobs?
    - Frondo 6y ago
      He could be referring to how Facebook was used in the Rohingya genocide, which they admitted to over two years ago: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/06/technology/myanmar-facebook.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/06/technology/myanmar-facebo...
      - uniqueid 6y ago
        It was a made-up example. I suppose I combined the Rohingyan and Rwandan genocides. FB had nothing to do with the latter, of course.
        coeneedell 6y ago
        Unless Zuckerburg has a time machine I'd have to agree with you.
    - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
      Any of them. When you're hiding under your bed, it doesn't matter which mob it is.
- yostrovs 6y ago
  Apple and Google can remove it from their app stores. The content peddled on Facebook is vile and, as this article points out, dangerous.
- TigeriusKirk 6y ago
  ISPs can ban it on the consumer end.
  - dylan604 6y ago
    for science, we did this at work by blocking facebook at the firewall. the employee's started murmoring about facebook being down, until someone smart enough tried it out on their BYOD. eventually, the mob got large enough and vocal enough that it was forced to be reverted. we wanted to see if productivity would increase with lack of access. however, it actually went down as people stopped working completely to start complaining about the jack booted IT decisions.
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 6y ago
  Maybe Intel and AMD could be pressured into not selling them CPUs. You aren’t censorship resistant until you can fab your own chips.
  - buzzerbetrayed 6y ago
    While I get that you’re joking, couldn’t Facebook exist for literally decades at their current scale (or near it if stuff breaks) just on the metal they already own?
    - sudosysgen 6y ago
      Or on used chips!
- kerng 6y ago
  Would be pretty easy for Apple and Google to remove them from stores
  - bilbo0s 6y ago
    If they don't moderate better, I'm sure Apple would love to use that as an excuse to remove FB from its stores. If Apple thought they could get away with it, they would. And they probably could get away with it if FB provided them with a solid enough pretext. FB is probably praying that the Inauguration goes off without a hitch, or that's the deathnell for the light content moderation regime of FB.
    - colejohnson66 6y ago
      I’ve reported so many comments that are clearly TOS breaking (such as ones saying it’s ok to be violent against politicians who failed us (or even ones saying one of them should be shot)), but they say they “don’t violate their community standards”. It’s garbage. And when you “appeal”, they say “no, we looked at it again, and it’s still ok”. I’ve given up on hoping FB moderation improves. They need to be smacked down hard. What good is “community standards” if they’re not enforced? Instagram, interestingly, it a lot more heavy handed (still not great though). Joan Cornella[0], who makes surrealist(?) comic strips, has posted on his IG story about his posts being removed for “violence” or whatever. [0]: https://instagram.com/sirjoancornella https://instagram.com/sirjoancornella
      - pstuart 6y ago
        Probably more luck on reporting pictures with nipples.
    - nradov 6y ago
      Nope. Facebook (including Instagram) are huge sales drivers for Apple. Millions of customers buy new devices every year primarily to use those social networks. Apple isn't stupid enough to cut that off just because a tiny minority of people are upset about some fringe Facebook posts.
Spooky23 6y ago
Facebook invented Trump. Twitter was his big broadcast medium, but the “movement” was born there. Bernie was similar but didn’t have the appeal to the dumb and old.
- DamnYuppie 6y ago
  Yeah Bernie took the young and dumb crowd.
  - Spooky23 6y ago
    They don’t vote!
- LordHumungous 6y ago
  Why are we letting Twitter off the hook when it was literally his biggest megaphone? Is it because Twitter is popular with liberals?
  - harry8 6y ago
    Without saying anything at all about what is and is not appropriate censorship policy there is a significant difference between facebook and twitter. Twitter is all in public. I don't need a twitter account to be able to read posts from any twitter account. [1][2] Facebook is private. Given I have no account I can't see any posts on facebook at all. Facebook can target the mentally unstable with incendiary, racist, sexist, violent and awful content /in/ /secret/. Whether by ads or through groups or similar. You have no idea what privately broadcasted communication is happening there at all. You probably have no idea of the nature of something as simple as political advertisements targeting those of a different political persuasion. None at all. It's dark to all of us. These are two quite different ways of broadcasting. You may wish to regulate communication on both or one but not the other or neither. Unless it's neither you favour it seems unlikely that the same regulation and enforcement is appropriate for each of these things. [1] Locked accounts on twitter don't appear to be a significantly used thing. Will obviously update that opinion in the light of better information, eg if it turns out that violent groups coordinate and recruit using locked twitter accounts. I don't believe much like that to be happening at the moment. [2] Without anything more than a browser you can read for example, Glenn Greenwald's latest twitter post at time of writing. https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1349514741358669824 https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1349514741358669824 Then agree, disagree, decide if he's a russian spy or a principled journalist focused on social justice, brilliant or a moron, or just right or wrong on just this one thing or you may decline to form a view. It's not secret. It's not communication happening behind your back that you don't know exists. (This particular post is also obviously not incitement to violence).
majormajor 6y ago
It is. Here Biden talks about revoking Section 230 because it shields FB from liability for the stuff that it helps spread: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/01/17/opinion/joe-biden-nytimes-interview.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/01/17/opinion/joe-b... > [Zuckerberg] knows better. And you know, from my perspective, I’ve been in the view that not only should we be worrying about the concentration of power, we should be worried about the lack of privacy and them being exempt, which you’re not exempt. [The Times] can’t write something you know to be false and be exempt from being sued. But he can. The idea that it’s a tech company is that Section 230 should be revoked, immediately should be revoked, number one. For Zuckerberg and other platforms. More discussion about the difference between the Democrat and Republican objections to 230 - but that they both have some - is here https://www.newyorker.com/tech/annals-of-technology/how-joe-biden-could-help-internet-companies-moderate-harmful-content https://www.newyorker.com/tech/annals-of-technology/how-joe-... among other places.

Unlike Parler, Facebook hosts its own metal. Beyond that it even owns its own domain registrar, CDN, and CA authority. There's no feasible way to deplatform it. (A good thing IMO, I just wish that same rock solid resistance to censorship was available to everybody.)

MR4D 6y ago
Apple and Google could effectively de-platform them in a day.
- dylan604 6y ago
  could they? their .com site would still work. their .onion site would still work. sure, people would bitch about not having native app any more, but unless Apple/Googs rolled an OS update to block specific .com traffic, then people could still access it via website.
- nradov 6y ago
  Apple and Google are already facing antitrust action. Politically they can't afford to make an enemy of Facebook right now.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
uniqueid 6y ago
Probably doesn't feel like a good thing when you're hiding under your bed, hoping the angry mob will tire of searching, and move on with their machetes to the next village.
- zarkov99 6y ago
  Which of the mobs?
  - Frondo 6y ago
    He could be referring to how Facebook was used in the Rohingya genocide, which they admitted to over two years ago: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/06/technology/myanmar-facebook.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/06/technology/myanmar-facebo...
    - uniqueid 6y ago
      It was a made-up example. I suppose I combined the Rohingyan and Rwandan genocides. FB had nothing to do with the latter, of course.
      - coeneedell 6y ago
        Unless Zuckerburg has a time machine I'd have to agree with you.
  - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
    Any of them. When you're hiding under your bed, it doesn't matter which mob it is.
yostrovs 6y ago
Apple and Google can remove it from their app stores. The content peddled on Facebook is vile and, as this article points out, dangerous.
TigeriusKirk 6y ago
ISPs can ban it on the consumer end.
- dylan604 6y ago
  for science, we did this at work by blocking facebook at the firewall. the employee's started murmoring about facebook being down, until someone smart enough tried it out on their BYOD. eventually, the mob got large enough and vocal enough that it was forced to be reverted. we wanted to see if productivity would increase with lack of access. however, it actually went down as people stopped working completely to start complaining about the jack booted IT decisions.
RcouF1uZ4gsC 6y ago
Maybe Intel and AMD could be pressured into not selling them CPUs. You aren’t censorship resistant until you can fab your own chips.
- buzzerbetrayed 6y ago
  While I get that you’re joking, couldn’t Facebook exist for literally decades at their current scale (or near it if stuff breaks) just on the metal they already own?
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    Or on used chips!
kerng 6y ago
Would be pretty easy for Apple and Google to remove them from stores
- bilbo0s 6y ago
  If they don't moderate better, I'm sure Apple would love to use that as an excuse to remove FB from its stores. If Apple thought they could get away with it, they would. And they probably could get away with it if FB provided them with a solid enough pretext. FB is probably praying that the Inauguration goes off without a hitch, or that's the deathnell for the light content moderation regime of FB.
  - colejohnson66 6y ago
    I’ve reported so many comments that are clearly TOS breaking (such as ones saying it’s ok to be violent against politicians who failed us (or even ones saying one of them should be shot)), but they say they “don’t violate their community standards”. It’s garbage. And when you “appeal”, they say “no, we looked at it again, and it’s still ok”. I’ve given up on hoping FB moderation improves. They need to be smacked down hard. What good is “community standards” if they’re not enforced? Instagram, interestingly, it a lot more heavy handed (still not great though). Joan Cornella[0], who makes surrealist(?) comic strips, has posted on his IG story about his posts being removed for “violence” or whatever. [0]: https://instagram.com/sirjoancornella https://instagram.com/sirjoancornella
    - pstuart 6y ago
      Probably more luck on reporting pictures with nipples.
  - nradov 6y ago
    Nope. Facebook (including Instagram) are huge sales drivers for Apple. Millions of customers buy new devices every year primarily to use those social networks. Apple isn't stupid enough to cut that off just because a tiny minority of people are upset about some fringe Facebook posts.

Spooky23 6y ago

Facebook invented Trump. Twitter was his big broadcast medium, but the “movement” was born there. Bernie was similar but didn’t have the appeal to the dumb and old.

DamnYuppie 6y ago
Yeah Bernie took the young and dumb crowd.
- Spooky23 6y ago
  They don’t vote!
LordHumungous 6y ago
Why are we letting Twitter off the hook when it was literally his biggest megaphone? Is it because Twitter is popular with liberals?
- harry8 6y ago
  Without saying anything at all about what is and is not appropriate censorship policy there is a significant difference between facebook and twitter. Twitter is all in public. I don't need a twitter account to be able to read posts from any twitter account. [1][2] Facebook is private. Given I have no account I can't see any posts on facebook at all. Facebook can target the mentally unstable with incendiary, racist, sexist, violent and awful content /in/ /secret/. Whether by ads or through groups or similar. You have no idea what privately broadcasted communication is happening there at all. You probably have no idea of the nature of something as simple as political advertisements targeting those of a different political persuasion. None at all. It's dark to all of us. These are two quite different ways of broadcasting. You may wish to regulate communication on both or one but not the other or neither. Unless it's neither you favour it seems unlikely that the same regulation and enforcement is appropriate for each of these things. [1] Locked accounts on twitter don't appear to be a significantly used thing. Will obviously update that opinion in the light of better information, eg if it turns out that violent groups coordinate and recruit using locked twitter accounts. I don't believe much like that to be happening at the moment. [2] Without anything more than a browser you can read for example, Glenn Greenwald's latest twitter post at time of writing. https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1349514741358669824 https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1349514741358669824 Then agree, disagree, decide if he's a russian spy or a principled journalist focused on social justice, brilliant or a moron, or just right or wrong on just this one thing or you may decline to form a view. It's not secret. It's not communication happening behind your back that you don't know exists. (This particular post is also obviously not incitement to violence).

majormajor 6y ago

It is. Here Biden talks about revoking Section 230 because it shields FB from liability for the stuff that it helps spread: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/01/17/opinion/joe-biden-nytimes-interview.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/01/17/opinion/joe-b... > [Zuckerberg] knows better. And you know, from my perspective, I’ve been in the view that not only should we be worrying about the concentration of power, we should be worried about the lack of privacy and them being exempt, which you’re not exempt. [The Times] can’t write something you know to be false and be exempt from being sued. But he can. The idea that it’s a tech company is that Section 230 should be revoked, immediately should be revoked, number one. For Zuckerberg and other platforms. More discussion about the difference between the Democrat and Republican objections to 230 - but that they both have some - is here https://www.newyorker.com/tech/annals-of-technology/how-joe-biden-could-help-internet-companies-moderate-harmful-content https://www.newyorker.com/tech/annals-of-technology/how-joe-... among other places.