4 ms·

Opinions are my own. > How many problems would be fixed if we stopped feeling sorry for the rich corporations and started requiring them to assume responsibili

Opinions are my own. > How many problems would be fixed if we stopped feeling sorry for the rich corporations and started requiring them to assume responsibility for the messes they create? Instead of "problems would be fixed", it would be "how many more problems would be created". - USPS should assume responsibility for scam mails since they help deliver them. Laws would be created to require USPS to "screen" all mails and refuse to deliver if it deems the mails are spam. After all, it's USPS "greed" to allow those spammers/scammers to send mail. - Telcos should assume responsibility for telephone frauds. Breaking News: Costco got hacked via telephone social engineering, T-Mobile is being sued. After all, it's the Telcos's "greed" to allow those scammers to make the phone call. They should have an army of operators listening to the phone call and stop the fraud before it happens. The worst outcome? By "stopped feeling sorry for the rich corporations", we are actually pushing to give them even more power, over our live. - By asking Facebook to police what is legal, we're handing them the right to decide what's right/wrong. At the same time, it creates even more regulatory captures, discouraging upstart alternatives to join the ring. The emotionally charged call might appeal to the popular us-vs-them, rich-vs-poor climate, but if we're not careful, it might lead us to the wrong solution.

matheusmoreira 6y ago
Not really. Facebook is not some neutral carrier of information. It's not a packet switched network. It's pretty much an advertising company. How could they not be responsible for the adverts they run? It's actually illegal to tamper with mail or wiretap phones without a warrant. The post office and telecommunications companies can't know what is going on. Same logic applies to networks and it's actually enforced via encryption. Facebook has complete knowledge of everything. It has every bit of information required to make these decisions. Failing to do so is negligence.
- gambiting 6y ago
  >>How could they not be responsible for the adverts they run? The whole idea is absurd to me. 20 years ago you had a marketplace section in a newspaper, you rang them and placed an ad for whatever it is you were doing or selling. Sometimes it was even free if it was short enough. It would never ever cross my mind that the newspaper should be responsible for what people post, because...why would they be? They couldn't print ads for drugs or prostitution, but neither can Facebook.
- Jon_Lowtek 6y ago
  > It has every bit of information required to make these decisions. Failing to do so is negligence. One could argue that the Ministry of State Security can and should do full surveillance of all citizens, collect all available information, including wiretapping all phones using blanket warrants, and act on it to detect and deter crime, including the crime of political opposition, at all cost, and not doing so is negligence, because it is possible and if it is possible it must be done.
- throwawei369 6y ago
  > How could they not be responsible for the adverts they run? Except Facebook is not a political outfit (though debatable depending on who you ask) but rather, a private business. Anything they do or don't do is determined by their business interests. Mind you,, if Facebook don't take this advertising money,, pretty sure their competitors in the ad space will be glad to fill that vacuum.
AniseAbyss 6y ago
Facebook doesn't write the laws they just have to enforce them. I don't see how telling Facebook to police their platform according to the laws of the land increases their power. In fact I'm getting fed up with the extraterritoriality of big tech.

matheusmoreira 6y ago

Not really. Facebook is not some neutral carrier of information. It's not a packet switched network. It's pretty much an advertising company. How could they not be responsible for the adverts they run? It's actually illegal to tamper with mail or wiretap phones without a warrant. The post office and telecommunications companies can't know what is going on. Same logic applies to networks and it's actually enforced via encryption. Facebook has complete knowledge of everything. It has every bit of information required to make these decisions. Failing to do so is negligence.

gambiting 6y ago
>>How could they not be responsible for the adverts they run? The whole idea is absurd to me. 20 years ago you had a marketplace section in a newspaper, you rang them and placed an ad for whatever it is you were doing or selling. Sometimes it was even free if it was short enough. It would never ever cross my mind that the newspaper should be responsible for what people post, because...why would they be? They couldn't print ads for drugs or prostitution, but neither can Facebook.
Jon_Lowtek 6y ago
> It has every bit of information required to make these decisions. Failing to do so is negligence. One could argue that the Ministry of State Security can and should do full surveillance of all citizens, collect all available information, including wiretapping all phones using blanket warrants, and act on it to detect and deter crime, including the crime of political opposition, at all cost, and not doing so is negligence, because it is possible and if it is possible it must be done.
throwawei369 6y ago
> How could they not be responsible for the adverts they run? Except Facebook is not a political outfit (though debatable depending on who you ask) but rather, a private business. Anything they do or don't do is determined by their business interests. Mind you,, if Facebook don't take this advertising money,, pretty sure their competitors in the ad space will be glad to fill that vacuum.

AniseAbyss 6y ago

Facebook doesn't write the laws they just have to enforce them. I don't see how telling Facebook to police their platform according to the laws of the land increases their power. In fact I'm getting fed up with the extraterritoriality of big tech.