4 ms·

Zuckerberg Proposes Plan for Regulatory Capture

25 points by kvee 6y ago

bullfightonmars 6y ago
This title clearly does not match the article "Zuckerberg suggests how to tweak tech's liability shield"
carbocation 6y ago
The HN title is currently "Zuckerberg Proposes Plan for Regulatory Capture" The axios title is currently "Zuckerberg suggests how to tweak tech's liability shield". I happen to agree with the opinion expressed in the editorialization, but that's not where those opinions belong; the headline should be retained and the opinion expressed in a comment. Doctorow wrote a useful Twitter thread on the topic: https://twitter.com/doctorow/status/1374785717394571266?s=20 https://twitter.com/doctorow/status/1374785717394571266?s=20
- basch 6y ago
  This post should not be dead. It's title should be fixed. What he's proposing is the exact opposite of the spirit of Section 230. 230 extends to everybody, theres no way to lose protection. He's saying, the only people protected should be those who can afford it. That's terrible for anyone starting up, unless they ... buy an anti-evil service from someone like facebook. So not only would it entrench facebook, but it would also open a new market for them to sell identity and spam and anti-evil services to startups. Which I believe it would be wise for facebook to do. But buying such a service shouldnt be enshrined into law.
  - carbocation 6y ago
    I agree - it's bad that the post is dead. This feels like exactly the sort of topic that should be generating discussion on HN. Edit: It looks like it's not dead anymore? Basically, I think this should be allowed to be reposted so it can have a proper discussion.
monadic9 6y ago
As long as facebook is held liable for their moderation—it appears to be dogshit at the moment at actually distinguishing good content from bad—this would be a step forward. Sadly, it seems like "a process", regardless of the quality, is sufficient for Zuckerberg. Of course, moderating at Facebook's scale requires a tradeoff—scaling the moderation team with the size of the network is a bare minimum to retain quality. There's no algorithmic method of moderation I can't trivially fool. So, we'll probably get facebook as our de facto fact checker for the world with a shitty algorithm backing it, and the misinformation will continue....
codemonkey-zeta 6y ago
"Please help me widen my moat"
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

25 points by kvee 6y ago

This title clearly does not match the article "Zuckerberg suggests how to tweak tech's liability shield"

The HN title is currently "Zuckerberg Proposes Plan for Regulatory Capture" The axios title is currently "Zuckerberg suggests how to tweak tech's liability shield". I happen to agree with the opinion expressed in the editorialization, but that's not where those opinions belong; the headline should be retained and the opinion expressed in a comment. Doctorow wrote a useful Twitter thread on the topic: https://twitter.com/doctorow/status/1374785717394571266?s=20 https://twitter.com/doctorow/status/1374785717394571266?s=20

basch 6y ago
This post should not be dead. It's title should be fixed. What he's proposing is the exact opposite of the spirit of Section 230. 230 extends to everybody, theres no way to lose protection. He's saying, the only people protected should be those who can afford it. That's terrible for anyone starting up, unless they ... buy an anti-evil service from someone like facebook. So not only would it entrench facebook, but it would also open a new market for them to sell identity and spam and anti-evil services to startups. Which I believe it would be wise for facebook to do. But buying such a service shouldnt be enshrined into law.
- carbocation 6y ago
  I agree - it's bad that the post is dead. This feels like exactly the sort of topic that should be generating discussion on HN. Edit: It looks like it's not dead anymore? Basically, I think this should be allowed to be reposted so it can have a proper discussion.

monadic9 6y ago

As long as facebook is held liable for their moderation—it appears to be dogshit at the moment at actually distinguishing good content from bad—this would be a step forward. Sadly, it seems like "a process", regardless of the quality, is sufficient for Zuckerberg. Of course, moderating at Facebook's scale requires a tradeoff—scaling the moderation team with the size of the network is a bare minimum to retain quality. There's no algorithmic method of moderation I can't trivially fool. So, we'll probably get facebook as our de facto fact checker for the world with a shitty algorithm backing it, and the misinformation will continue....

codemonkey-zeta 6y ago

"Please help me widen my moat"

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]