4 ms·

Definitely not, the UN has no legitimacy here, let alone the judicial framework. Ideally, there would be 'very simple and clear regulation' put forth by the go

by jariel 6y ago

Definitely not, the UN has no legitimacy here, let alone the judicial framework. Ideally, there would be 'very simple and clear regulation' put forth by the government, and then it should be 'easy' for FB's 'independent panel' (doesn't need to be anyone special, but maybe some lawyers) to make the calls. Then it can be taken up in the courts if need be. We definitely need move this away from the control of the private sector of this there is no doubt. And also, I'm very wary of lifetime bans for things which are crossing the threshold into the public commons i.e. FB/G etc.. I suggest there might be a better way to do this.

peteretep 6y ago
> Definitely not, the UN has no legitimacy here, let alone the judicial framework. The UN has many, many specialised agencies with legitimacy, jurisdiction, and judicial frameworks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_specialized_agencies_of_the_United_Nations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_specialized_agencies_o... I think we’ll see one for media networks
- jariel 6y ago
  They have no legitimacy in this case, and just because an agency exists, doesn't really give it legitimacy either. The UN is a grab bag of patchwork things, some for the better, some for the worse. This is the last thing we want the UN involved in. If there were people truly suffering from this, then they'd be a great place to have an agency to give voice to the issue, but beyond that, no.
  - webmaven 6y ago
    > They have no legitimacy in this case, and just because an agency exists, doesn't really give it legitimacy either. What does legitimacy mean to you in this context? I don't disagree that mere existence doesn't grant it, but I'm not sure I understand what (or who) would, in your view.