5 ms·

Phones don't pretend to be a moderated public platform. Also, the government has the legal right to monitor phones just as much as they do Facebook via the corr

Phones don't pretend to be a moderated public platform. Also, the government has the legal right to monitor phones just as much as they do Facebook via the correct warrants.

ryandrake 6y ago
Yea the difference in my mind is that the phone company does not moderate content or exercise editorial control over what gets sent over its lines, but Facebook does. So if Facebook decided that this kind of user generated content was acceptable to publish, they should be liable for the resulting problems.
- kevin_thibedeau 6y ago
  Phones don't allow complete strangers to discover each other and work themselves into a frenzy over their shared angst.
  - bdamm 6y ago
    Phones do in fact allow this, the difference is that it doesn't scale up in a 1:many relationship, and the phone users are not incentivized to use the phone more for this purpose over, say, calling their mom.
- godelski 6y ago
  I'm not sure Facebook is acting like an editor here. Those approve every post. Facebook can't practically do they. I'm critical of this case because it's a large group and thus Facebook should have been aware, but it seems like it's a tall order to ask Facebook to migrate everything. Isn't this what section 230 is about? Before you either migrate all our not at all. 230 let's you at least try to moderate (because let's be real, you can't moderate a billion people)
  - Nextgrid 6y ago
    Facebook does act like an editor by way of their algorithms. Facebook's (and other social media's) timelines are no longer limited to the people you explicitly follow. Whether they have the ability to moderate or not is irrelevant. If you can't afford the obligations of a publisher, don't be a publisher.
    - godelski 6y ago
      But how do you codify that in law? I clearly want some moderation (taking down illegal stuff, border line illegal, and etc) but if your choice is "moderate all or not at all" (as my understanding of pre section 230 is) then no one is going to moderate anything at all. I'm not trying to defend Facebook here, but I feel completely ignoring any of the nuance to the situation is disingenuous. It's not like you can moderate a billion people, you could only do your best (I'm not saying Facebook is doing their best). Removing the nuance of the situation to make an easy argument is exactly the problem that got us here in the first place so let's not continue it.
      - Nextgrid 6y ago
        I'm not talking about moderation here. I'm talking about the fact that Facebook promotes certain content in user's feeds (including content that these users have no direct relationship to - they're not friends with the author nor follow him) in order to generate "engagement". This should stop. Regarding moderation, it's true that you can't moderate billions of people with 100% accuracy, but you can discourage them from posting undesirable content in the first place by associating real consequences such a a permanent ban (or a monetary loss, by charging an entry fee to create an account) or make them earn the privilege of posting content (for example, not being able to post links until your account has certain reputation of good behavior). Discouraging people from posting bad content, and not amplifying the reach of bad content for engagement's sake should go a long way.
        mbg721 6y ago
        There's something to this. The things people hate about Facebook aren't caused by some user sitting down and typing a post, and in fact that kind of content gets buried in the feed anyway. The problems start with "sharing the story at the top of the feed" and "your friend liked X article which is really an ad". It's a more aggressive version of 90s email chain-letters.
Nextgrid 6y ago
Phones don't automatically make calls to people who disagree with your opinion or peddle misinformation all the time in order to generate "engagement" for the phone company.

Phones don't pretend to be a moderated public platform. Also, the government has the legal right to monitor phones just as much as they do Facebook via the correct warrants.

ryandrake 6y ago

Yea the difference in my mind is that the phone company does not moderate content or exercise editorial control over what gets sent over its lines, but Facebook does. So if Facebook decided that this kind of user generated content was acceptable to publish, they should be liable for the resulting problems.

kevin_thibedeau 6y ago
Phones don't allow complete strangers to discover each other and work themselves into a frenzy over their shared angst.
- bdamm 6y ago
  Phones do in fact allow this, the difference is that it doesn't scale up in a 1:many relationship, and the phone users are not incentivized to use the phone more for this purpose over, say, calling their mom.
godelski 6y ago
I'm not sure Facebook is acting like an editor here. Those approve every post. Facebook can't practically do they. I'm critical of this case because it's a large group and thus Facebook should have been aware, but it seems like it's a tall order to ask Facebook to migrate everything. Isn't this what section 230 is about? Before you either migrate all our not at all. 230 let's you at least try to moderate (because let's be real, you can't moderate a billion people)
- Nextgrid 6y ago
  Facebook does act like an editor by way of their algorithms. Facebook's (and other social media's) timelines are no longer limited to the people you explicitly follow. Whether they have the ability to moderate or not is irrelevant. If you can't afford the obligations of a publisher, don't be a publisher.
  - godelski 6y ago
    But how do you codify that in law? I clearly want some moderation (taking down illegal stuff, border line illegal, and etc) but if your choice is "moderate all or not at all" (as my understanding of pre section 230 is) then no one is going to moderate anything at all. I'm not trying to defend Facebook here, but I feel completely ignoring any of the nuance to the situation is disingenuous. It's not like you can moderate a billion people, you could only do your best (I'm not saying Facebook is doing their best). Removing the nuance of the situation to make an easy argument is exactly the problem that got us here in the first place so let's not continue it.
    - Nextgrid 6y ago
      I'm not talking about moderation here. I'm talking about the fact that Facebook promotes certain content in user's feeds (including content that these users have no direct relationship to - they're not friends with the author nor follow him) in order to generate "engagement". This should stop. Regarding moderation, it's true that you can't moderate billions of people with 100% accuracy, but you can discourage them from posting undesirable content in the first place by associating real consequences such a a permanent ban (or a monetary loss, by charging an entry fee to create an account) or make them earn the privilege of posting content (for example, not being able to post links until your account has certain reputation of good behavior). Discouraging people from posting bad content, and not amplifying the reach of bad content for engagement's sake should go a long way.
      - mbg721 6y ago
        There's something to this. The things people hate about Facebook aren't caused by some user sitting down and typing a post, and in fact that kind of content gets buried in the feed anyway. The problems start with "sharing the story at the top of the feed" and "your friend liked X article which is really an ad". It's a more aggressive version of 90s email chain-letters.

Nextgrid 6y ago

Phones don't automatically make calls to people who disagree with your opinion or peddle misinformation all the time in order to generate "engagement" for the phone company.