2 ms·
I concede that some accounts probably deserve that specific type of protection. However, it doesn’t explain the other kinds of protections these people have, in
by otterley 5y ago
I concede that some accounts probably deserve that specific type of protection. However, it doesn’t explain the other kinds of protections these people have, including exemption from content-based rules. Those are the issues of real concern.
- nindalf 5y agoThe fact that the content couldn’t be taken down was a bug. I feel like you, the author and most critics of Big Tech discount the possibility of bugs existing.
- otterley 5y agoI’m sure you’ve read the old fable of “The Boy Who Cried Wolf.” Facebook has made voluntary decisions at the highest levels, reported over the course of the past decade, to shield certain people from its content rules that apply to the general public. So if it was a bug this time (and I have no reason to believe that it wasn’t), I’m sure you can understand people’s skepticism about it. Moreover, I assume this bug was reported internally, probably pretty quickly. How long did it take to get fixed? If the fix wasn’t prioritized and corrected within, say, a day (along with a regression test to ensure it never happens again!), then that would be pretty damning of the company’s culture and priorities as well.
- asveikau 5y agoBut facebook comes across as unwilling and uninterested to fix the bugs in cases like these. Sometimes, even, the bugs themselves seem to surface resulting from fundamentally misstructuring the problem.