4 ms·

It also leads bad actors to game the system.

CamperBob2 6y ago
That's unfortunate. Not the victim's problem, though.
alisonkisk 6y ago
"bad people might behave better to we can't ban them easily" is a pretty poor argument. Zuckerberg has $50,000,000,000; he can afford to hire some people to do the job.
- a1369209993 6y ago
  To be scrupulously fair, I think the concern is more "bad people might behave just as bad, but in ways that technically don't fit whatever criteria we banned the last group for". Or, less directly, "bad people might find good people who behave in ways that technically do fit those criteria, and try to get them banned".
- edmundsauto 6y ago
  Looking at their financials, it looks like they’ve massively increased headcount to battle these “integrity” problems. It at least looks like they’ve invested a ton of money. From the outside, I am not sure it’s been effective, but to be fair, have there been as many issues since they started investing significantly around 2018? Most of the major problems look like it happened before. (Not to excuse that time, but if they are fixing issues then it changes the future projections while still not letting them off the hook for past problems)
einpoklum 6y ago
Bad actors don't need to game the system, they either: * Get their government cronies/buddies to skew the system in their favor. * Use their business relationship with Facebook to skew the system in their favor. * Own the system from the get-go.
- edmundsauto 6y ago
  There are many worse people in the world than this. I should have been more clear in saying malicious and maliciously motivated actors.
  - a1369209993 6y ago
    > I should have been more clear in saying malicious and maliciously motivated actors. The actors einpoklum refers to are malicious and maliciously motivated. Do you perhaps mean unsubtle in their malice and lacking in significant public credulity? (Eg, white supremacists.) Because while there are plenty of other bad actors, any 'solution' that doesn't address the bad actors einpoklum describes... isn't.

That's unfortunate. Not the victim's problem, though.

"bad people might behave better to we can't ban them easily" is a pretty poor argument. Zuckerberg has $50,000,000,000; he can afford to hire some people to do the job.

a1369209993 6y ago
To be scrupulously fair, I think the concern is more "bad people might behave just as bad, but in ways that technically don't fit whatever criteria we banned the last group for". Or, less directly, "bad people might find good people who behave in ways that technically do fit those criteria, and try to get them banned".
edmundsauto 6y ago
Looking at their financials, it looks like they’ve massively increased headcount to battle these “integrity” problems. It at least looks like they’ve invested a ton of money. From the outside, I am not sure it’s been effective, but to be fair, have there been as many issues since they started investing significantly around 2018? Most of the major problems look like it happened before. (Not to excuse that time, but if they are fixing issues then it changes the future projections while still not letting them off the hook for past problems)

einpoklum 6y ago

Bad actors don't need to game the system, they either: * Get their government cronies/buddies to skew the system in their favor. * Use their business relationship with Facebook to skew the system in their favor. * Own the system from the get-go.

edmundsauto 6y ago
There are many worse people in the world than this. I should have been more clear in saying malicious and maliciously motivated actors.
- a1369209993 6y ago
  > I should have been more clear in saying malicious and maliciously motivated actors. The actors einpoklum refers to are malicious and maliciously motivated. Do you perhaps mean unsubtle in their malice and lacking in significant public credulity? (Eg, white supremacists.) Because while there are plenty of other bad actors, any 'solution' that doesn't address the bad actors einpoklum describes... isn't.