4 ms·

Liability for what exactly? How about people who actually commit bad acts are the ones responsible for it? It seems like you haven't really thought about this

Liability for what exactly? How about people who actually commit bad acts are the ones responsible for it? It seems like you haven't really thought about this and are just personally against adtech and those companies. That's not how rights and legislation should be decided.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
ocdtrekkie 6y ago
Fostering insurrection for profit is, I am pretty sure, illegal. And I'm pretty sure a prison or worse offense.
- xkcd-sucks 6y ago
  What about empowering people to protect themselves from violent insurrectionists? If I read in the news that a whole bunch of people planned to converge on my town and shoot at each other, I would certainly consider buying some body armor
  - pardonmesir 6y ago
    So the options are a) Facebook sells tactical equipment to one side, and body armor to the other, or b) They ban these product categories altogether. In context with the fact that Facebook also served up the precise content day after day, year after year, which put people (the whole population) into this inconsistent-with-reality, individually tailored emotional state which is nothing if not a constant reflection and validation of their worst tendencies and pre-dispositions. Think of an honestly shitty person whose problems are of their own creation in every way (for the purpose of this thought experiment, you can even pretend it’s not you). Do you think Facebook ever gave them a series of posts that reflects that? Or would they log on to see all the ways other people are the problem? And that’s everyone. We all have flaws, but this is a profit-driven platform. And if you’re trying to sell someone something, making them feel like the true piece of shit they really are isn’t exactly in the ABCs of how to make a sale, much less at their machine-driven scale. Facebook is basically the automated version of the guy rubbing a boxer’s shoulders in the corner of the ring, whispering in their ear a never-ending slew of made-up things the other guy said so that when the fight starts, he’s angry as can be.
- a3n 6y ago
  Are you saying the posts, or the ads next to them, are the illegal fostering? I think the gear advertised is legal.
ytwySXpMbS 6y ago
How is someone supporting and fostering a bad act not also to blame? I see from your profile you work in adtech, perhaps rights shouldn't be decided by people who seek to avoid blame because they profit from it.
- manigandham 6y ago
  You have no idea about my background so let's stick to the actual argument. Selling items and running ads is not the same as supporting or fostering a bad act. People can similarly buy knives or many other potential and actual weapons, it's still the user that's ultimately at fault.
  - ocdtrekkie 6y ago
    When you run an ad for weapons next to articles inciting retaliation against the government, it does become the same as supporting or fostering an insurrection. Now, sure, it can happen because you unleashed an algorithm on the world and don't know what it does, but you're still responsible for it.
    - manigandham 6y ago
      People are responsible for their own actions. Perhaps you want the government to tell you what you can say but I would prefer to go in the opposite direction and completely divorce speech from action, and stop trampling on our rights over the actions of a few. This endless shifting of blame solves nothing.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
LargoLasskhyfv 6y ago
Hm. OK. Let's compare this with how child pornography is handled, be it its distribution, or posession, not to speak of the production. Do you still think your position has merit? :-)
- manigandham 6y ago
  Yes, because my position isn't discussing illegal items. They can't run ads for heroin either.
buran77 6y ago
> How about people who actually commit bad acts are the ones responsible for it? "Strangely" enough this does not apply when corporations' money is at stake, hence sites like The Pirate Bay are held responsible. Taking 2 opposite approaches for the same issue in order for the lobbying corporations to profit is a sign of acting in bad faith. Facebook built this 2 billion people village, exploited them and collected taxes, then said "You know what? Policing it is hard so let the governments do it". And the governments should do it. EaaS - Enforcement as a service. And as any service it should cost. No personal liability needed, once money starts pouring out of the companies' coffers you'll see how quickly they find a solution.
lenkite 6y ago
Why not ? If Parler/Gab can be de-platformed and sued for supporting violent insurrection, so should facebook/twitter for advertising violent insurrection.
themaninthedark 6y ago
Careful, with that argument incitement charges become impossible.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

ocdtrekkie 6y ago

Fostering insurrection for profit is, I am pretty sure, illegal. And I'm pretty sure a prison or worse offense.

xkcd-sucks 6y ago
What about empowering people to protect themselves from violent insurrectionists? If I read in the news that a whole bunch of people planned to converge on my town and shoot at each other, I would certainly consider buying some body armor
- pardonmesir 6y ago
  So the options are a) Facebook sells tactical equipment to one side, and body armor to the other, or b) They ban these product categories altogether. In context with the fact that Facebook also served up the precise content day after day, year after year, which put people (the whole population) into this inconsistent-with-reality, individually tailored emotional state which is nothing if not a constant reflection and validation of their worst tendencies and pre-dispositions. Think of an honestly shitty person whose problems are of their own creation in every way (for the purpose of this thought experiment, you can even pretend it’s not you). Do you think Facebook ever gave them a series of posts that reflects that? Or would they log on to see all the ways other people are the problem? And that’s everyone. We all have flaws, but this is a profit-driven platform. And if you’re trying to sell someone something, making them feel like the true piece of shit they really are isn’t exactly in the ABCs of how to make a sale, much less at their machine-driven scale. Facebook is basically the automated version of the guy rubbing a boxer’s shoulders in the corner of the ring, whispering in their ear a never-ending slew of made-up things the other guy said so that when the fight starts, he’s angry as can be.
a3n 6y ago
Are you saying the posts, or the ads next to them, are the illegal fostering? I think the gear advertised is legal.

ytwySXpMbS 6y ago

How is someone supporting and fostering a bad act not also to blame? I see from your profile you work in adtech, perhaps rights shouldn't be decided by people who seek to avoid blame because they profit from it.

manigandham 6y ago
You have no idea about my background so let's stick to the actual argument. Selling items and running ads is not the same as supporting or fostering a bad act. People can similarly buy knives or many other potential and actual weapons, it's still the user that's ultimately at fault.
- ocdtrekkie 6y ago
  When you run an ad for weapons next to articles inciting retaliation against the government, it does become the same as supporting or fostering an insurrection. Now, sure, it can happen because you unleashed an algorithm on the world and don't know what it does, but you're still responsible for it.
  - manigandham 6y ago
    People are responsible for their own actions. Perhaps you want the government to tell you what you can say but I would prefer to go in the opposite direction and completely divorce speech from action, and stop trampling on our rights over the actions of a few. This endless shifting of blame solves nothing.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

LargoLasskhyfv 6y ago

Hm. OK. Let's compare this with how child pornography is handled, be it its distribution, or posession, not to speak of the production. Do you still think your position has merit? :-)

manigandham 6y ago
Yes, because my position isn't discussing illegal items. They can't run ads for heroin either.

buran77 6y ago

> How about people who actually commit bad acts are the ones responsible for it? "Strangely" enough this does not apply when corporations' money is at stake, hence sites like The Pirate Bay are held responsible. Taking 2 opposite approaches for the same issue in order for the lobbying corporations to profit is a sign of acting in bad faith. Facebook built this 2 billion people village, exploited them and collected taxes, then said "You know what? Policing it is hard so let the governments do it". And the governments should do it. EaaS - Enforcement as a service. And as any service it should cost. No personal liability needed, once money starts pouring out of the companies' coffers you'll see how quickly they find a solution.

lenkite 6y ago

Why not ? If Parler/Gab can be de-platformed and sued for supporting violent insurrection, so should facebook/twitter for advertising violent insurrection.

themaninthedark 6y ago

Careful, with that argument incitement charges become impossible.