4 ms·

Not dystopian or absurd, at all. It's like a tobacco company sponsored research lab to determine if nicotine is addictive.

loceng 6y ago
No, it's not. This isn't about addiction, that's a different conversation. This is about a private company trying to do a better job of moderating what are very nuanced and important situations: what is acceptable behaviour on their private platform ("in their home") and what is not acceptable behaviour.
- tantalor 6y ago
  The problem is Facebook is only going to ask for help if they don't care about the verdict. If one of the possible answers is bad for business then what?
  - saddlerustle 6y ago
    Users can appeal content moderation decisions to the board themselves: https://www.oversightboard.com/appeals-process/ https://www.oversightboard.com/appeals-process/
- takoid 6y ago
  The comment you’re replying to is not trying to make the discussion about addiction. They are pointing out the absurdity of expecting a corporation to self-regulate itself in any meaningful way. This Oversight Board is likely nothing more than a manufactured authority figure designed to sway public opinion by deflecting responsibility away from Facebook in regards to censorship. Don’t be surprised when this Oversight Board comes out in full support of how Facebook handled the situation.
pfisch 6y ago
As long as there has been democracy corporations have had oversight over controlling mass communications. What is happening now is not new or different. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/time-private-us-media-companies-stepped-silence-falsehoods-and-incitements-major-public-figure-1938-180976771/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/time-private-us-media...
- secabeen 6y ago
  The classic quip to this end is something like: "freedom of the press is a freedom only available to people who own a press."
saddlerustle 6y ago
Almost always Facebook does not care about the outcome of content moderation decisions. It does not meaningly affect ad revenue, but it's a huge driver of bad press. They want to externalise it as much as possible.
- asddubs 6y ago
  I think in this case they would actually stand to gain if they could just say "whelp, you heard the board, unban his account. sorry folks, nothing we can do, our hands are tied"

loceng 6y ago

No, it's not. This isn't about addiction, that's a different conversation. This is about a private company trying to do a better job of moderating what are very nuanced and important situations: what is acceptable behaviour on their private platform ("in their home") and what is not acceptable behaviour.

tantalor 6y ago
The problem is Facebook is only going to ask for help if they don't care about the verdict. If one of the possible answers is bad for business then what?
- saddlerustle 6y ago
  Users can appeal content moderation decisions to the board themselves: https://www.oversightboard.com/appeals-process/ https://www.oversightboard.com/appeals-process/
takoid 6y ago
The comment you’re replying to is not trying to make the discussion about addiction. They are pointing out the absurdity of expecting a corporation to self-regulate itself in any meaningful way. This Oversight Board is likely nothing more than a manufactured authority figure designed to sway public opinion by deflecting responsibility away from Facebook in regards to censorship. Don’t be surprised when this Oversight Board comes out in full support of how Facebook handled the situation.

pfisch 6y ago

As long as there has been democracy corporations have had oversight over controlling mass communications. What is happening now is not new or different. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/time-private-us-media-companies-stepped-silence-falsehoods-and-incitements-major-public-figure-1938-180976771/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/time-private-us-media...

secabeen 6y ago
The classic quip to this end is something like: "freedom of the press is a freedom only available to people who own a press."

saddlerustle 6y ago

Almost always Facebook does not care about the outcome of content moderation decisions. It does not meaningly affect ad revenue, but it's a huge driver of bad press. They want to externalise it as much as possible.

asddubs 6y ago
I think in this case they would actually stand to gain if they could just say "whelp, you heard the board, unban his account. sorry folks, nothing we can do, our hands are tied"