2 ms·
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 ob
by joshuamorton 6y 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 6y agoif 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 6y agoDefinitions, 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).