4 ms·
If the negative externalities are the same in both cases, then this isn't an excuse. Just because Facebook has proportionally fewer posts that violate its polic
by JMTQp8lwXL 6y ago
If the negative externalities are the same in both cases, then this isn't an excuse. Just because Facebook has proportionally fewer posts that violate its policies doesn't mean it should get a free pass. The fact that up to 15,000 people have PTSD is the societal cost we pay, even if the vast majority of FB users are using the platform as expected.
Facebook gets a free pass because Facebook is an influential organization. Parler had no network of elites protecting it, because as you say, it had no other purpose beyond being 'volunteer' moderated.
If at a minimum, the attack gets us to think about the type of questions posed by The Social Dilemma, we're trending towards a better place.
- standardUser 6y ago"Facebook gets a free pass..." No, Facebook devotes significant resources to moderation and makes good faith attempts to uphold their policies. Parler did not. That is the difference. "If the negative externalities are the same in both cases, then this isn't an excuse." No one is trying to rid the world of all negative externalities, only to make reasonable efforts to mitigate them. There may never be a perfectly moderated social media platform, just as there may never be a perfectly safe highway, and that is fine.
- JMTQp8lwXL 6y agoYou're right, Facebook won't get a free pass. Congress will drag Zuckerberg back into Congress, give him a scolding, and then largely things will remain the same. Whether or not they moderate enough is certainly a gray question. All sorts of industries have negative externalities (e.g., fossil fuels). But are Facebook's worth it if they destabilize the democracy in which allowed Facebook to grow and exist?
- Griffinsauce 6y ago> No, Facebook devotes significant resources to moderation and makes good faith attempts to uphold their policies. What's always missing here is that the outcome is still terrible and everyone is arguing from the premise that Facebook deserves to exist regardless. If I maintain my rollercoaster in good faith but I just can't hire enough maintenance crew to do it well and people keep dying on it... maybe the rollercoaster doesn't deserve to be open and should be shut down.
- mensetmanusman 6y agoWe can look to China at what effective moderation looks like and then learn that FB would need 2-3 orders more moderators to make it ‘safe’
- chmod600 6y ago"good faith attempts" If it's about intent, rather than results, then it's sure a big coincidence that Parler was deplatformed by Apple, Google, and AWS all within a few days.
- jackson1442 6y agoAWS has actually been telling Parler to clean the site up for months. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/01/filing-amazon-warned-parler-for-months-about-more-than-100-violent-threats/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/01/filing-amazon-wa... original sources can be found within the article.
- bananabreakfast 6y agoNo one gets a free pass, that is disingenuous. These two things are not the same. Facebook makes a good faith effort to scale content moderation. Parler did not.