4 ms·

I support strong moderation, but it was a farce from the start to create an 'Oversight Board' because there is no such thing as objectively fair moderation. Th

I support strong moderation, but it was a farce from the start to create an 'Oversight Board' because there is no such thing as objectively fair moderation. The group's recommendation that Facebook add even more rules than it already has to its moderation flowchart is a waste of time because — again — there is no such thing as objectively fair moderation. FB should hire people who share its values and goals and entrust them to moderate as they see fit. As I see it, there are only three good explanations for banning users or removing content: (1) "we think this is illegal" (2) "we just don't like seeing this kind of thing on our servers", or (3) "we just think the kind of users we want to attract don't like seeing this on our servers." You can't argue with those explanations because they're honest. If an online forum wants to remove a photo of a turd, they shouldn't have to do philosophical soul-searching to explain what they don't like about turd photos, or spell out an exact heuristic they will use to identify a turd.

joshuamorton 5y ago
They don't claim to be objectively fair. They claim to ensure that Facebook is acting in alignment with us stated policies and values. Whether they're being objective judges is a question, but they've not trying to determine if facebooks policies are objective, but if facebooks non objective policies are enforced fairly and consistently.
- uniqueid 5y ago
  if facebooks non objective policies are enforced fairly and consistently. But that is the sort of thing I doubt is actually possible. My interpretation of content that 'incites violence' will differ from someone else's. If we create more rules to define any phrase, we only shift the subjectivity out to concepts within the original phrase (eg: we agree on a definition of 'incitement', but then wind up disagreeing about what constitutes a 'threat' or 'bodily harm' or some other part of our definition) What is more honest is to say 'our policy for moderating this area of FB is our employee Alice here. If Alice thinks your post doesn't belong here, it's gone!' That's close to the way message boards used to work.
  - virtue3 5y ago
    Definitions, etc, should be handled by the court (aka the obscenity laws a few years ago). I don't think FB is in a situation where they can claim "it's not possible to be fair so we aren't going to try". I believe an imperfect solution in good faith is much better legally than not complying (aka why amazon is in the hot seat).
andrepd 5y ago
That's all very well and good for your friendly neighbourhood forum. But facebook is not a small forum, it's a massive chunk of the internet. I'm not at all confortable with gigantic tech benemoths with more power than many nation-states being able to dictate what is acceptable or not. At this point they're so big that they absolutely need democratic oversight. They reap fabulous rewards for their scale and dominance. They should also pay the prices for that scale.
- uniqueid 5y ago
  I've been rolling your comment over in my mind today. Clearly you're right that FB has too much power, but I hope we find a better solution than to allow a succession of startups to approach FB's size, and then sanction them or break them up. I would prefer we alter the design of the internet/web in ways that provide more accountability (ie: built-in disincentives to shill or troll) and more control (eg: privacy, and the ability for users and groups to filter out kinds of content they dislike — ads or gore or malware or propaganda or etc...) to its users. I realize accountability and control oppose each other, but we could strengthen one in some contexts and weaken it in others. I've actually, in the past, speculated on HN about specific ways to achieve that. That said, in the short term, I agree FB should pay a price for its scale.

joshuamorton 5y ago

They don't claim to be objectively fair. They claim to ensure that Facebook is acting in alignment with us stated policies and values. Whether they're being objective judges is a question, but they've not trying to determine if facebooks policies are objective, but if facebooks non objective policies are enforced fairly and consistently.

uniqueid 5y ago
if facebooks non objective policies are enforced fairly and consistently. But that is the sort of thing I doubt is actually possible. My interpretation of content that 'incites violence' will differ from someone else's. If we create more rules to define any phrase, we only shift the subjectivity out to concepts within the original phrase (eg: we agree on a definition of 'incitement', but then wind up disagreeing about what constitutes a 'threat' or 'bodily harm' or some other part of our definition) What is more honest is to say 'our policy for moderating this area of FB is our employee Alice here. If Alice thinks your post doesn't belong here, it's gone!' That's close to the way message boards used to work.
- virtue3 5y ago
  Definitions, etc, should be handled by the court (aka the obscenity laws a few years ago). I don't think FB is in a situation where they can claim "it's not possible to be fair so we aren't going to try". I believe an imperfect solution in good faith is much better legally than not complying (aka why amazon is in the hot seat).

andrepd 5y ago

That's all very well and good for your friendly neighbourhood forum. But facebook is not a small forum, it's a massive chunk of the internet. I'm not at all confortable with gigantic tech benemoths with more power than many nation-states being able to dictate what is acceptable or not. At this point they're so big that they absolutely need democratic oversight. They reap fabulous rewards for their scale and dominance. They should also pay the prices for that scale.

uniqueid 5y ago
I've been rolling your comment over in my mind today. Clearly you're right that FB has too much power, but I hope we find a better solution than to allow a succession of startups to approach FB's size, and then sanction them or break them up. I would prefer we alter the design of the internet/web in ways that provide more accountability (ie: built-in disincentives to shill or troll) and more control (eg: privacy, and the ability for users and groups to filter out kinds of content they dislike — ads or gore or malware or propaganda or etc...) to its users. I realize accountability and control oppose each other, but we could strengthen one in some contexts and weaken it in others. I've actually, in the past, speculated on HN about specific ways to achieve that. That said, in the short term, I agree FB should pay a price for its scale.