3 ms·
If you take the opposite line, that Facebook is responsible for checking that the product is sold legally, then the conclusion is that Facebook would have to co
by erostrate 6y ago
If you take the opposite line, that Facebook is responsible for checking that the product is sold legally, then the conclusion is that Facebook would have to confirm legal ownership of every product before allowing a sale.
This also seems wrong.
The right solution is in the middle: Facebook should spend some effort validating the legality of the sale. The required standard of effort should depend on how much money Facebook is making from the ads, and on an estimate of the proportion of products sold illegally, amongst other things. The former to ensure that a very small similar website is not held to the same standard, the latter to ensure that if 99% of the products are sold illegally then Facebook is responsible.
Without knowing the total volume of these land ads and the proportion of illegal ones, it is hard to tell if there is anything to fix here.
- uhhhhhhhhhhhhhh 6y agoYes I'd like one facebook becomes the government please.
- foerbert 6y agoLargely I agree with you, though I don't think your calculation of effort is quite complete. One factor that should be considered is the harm done by allowing the ads. Facilitating the sale of a stolen phone is not going to be as harmful as facilitating, say, adulterated nutrition supplements. This dovetails nicely with the full-on terrible and illegal side of things. There are likely not many ads for human trafficking on Facebook, but they are so horrendous that it is still worth expending significant effort to detect and remove them. And while not comparable to the above situation, I would argue illegal Amazon land deals ads are causing an outsized harm compared to ads for similarly mundane-sounding illegal goods/service/whatever. They deserve special attention.