6 ms·

Apple is not responsible for the web's content. Facebook is most definitely responsible for the content they store and provide on Instagram. It's absurd how so

by hugi 5y ago

Apple is not responsible for the web's content. Facebook is most definitely responsible for the content they store and provide on Instagram. It's absurd how some people dislike Apple so much they're willing to defend Facebook's right to provide human trafficking services.

mensetmanusman 5y ago
Facebook/IG is bigger than the Internet in many countries, because it arrives for free on phones, and because it arrived before people started generating web content in their locale. For many of these people, Facebook == Internet. This is not to discourage what you are saying, it’s just a note that what Safari shows is kind of arbitrary in the abstract.
cft 5y ago
The analogy here is mandating Safari to block individual URLs as a condition for it remaining in the app store. Nobody here defends human trafficking. People defend freedom of speech and open computing.
- jmull 5y ago
  > People defend freedom of speech and open computing. But what does that have to do with Facebook? Facebook is not a free speech platform. They built and maintain their social network based on content moderation. Their social network, of course, is the reason anyone uses Facebook. Anyway, Safari doesn't host and moderate the content of the internet, but Facebook certainly does host and moderate the content of Facebook. There's no real logical connection here.
danbruc 5y ago
I write a document with illegal content [1] in Word, use Adobe to turn into a PDF, upload it with Chrome through Verizon to Facebook from where a different users downloads it through AT&T and Safari to print it on their Canon printer. And the internet backbone is also somewhere in-between. And the computer manufacturers. And the operating system. And thousands of libraries. If we want this content filtered out, what makes Facebook special in this chain such that it is their responsibility to perform the filtering? Why is Word not responsible for preventing the creation of the document in the first place? Why does the service provider not prevent the upload? Why does the printer not refuse to print the document? Or a screen blur the content? I am not arguing that it is not the responsibility of Facebook, I just want to point out that - at least at first look - this seems to be pretty arbitrary pick. So what makes Facebook special? Is it just a matter of practicality because Facebook is the single point of failure in that chain that can not be bypassed? [1] Let us ignore all the complications due to different jurisdictions.
- jackcosgrove 5y ago
  > what makes Facebook special in this chain Responsibility should be proportional to profit. I am not even sure Facebook is the most profitable link in this chain, but it probably is. > Is it just a matter of practicality because Facebook is the single point of failure in that chain that can not be bypassed And they have the best capability for that reason.
- wavefunction 5y ago
  >what makes Facebook special In your scenario they seem to be the place other people are "discovering" and downloading the PDF from. Perhaps gathering together to discuss whatever is in the PDF and reinforce each other's beliefs about the content. This could of course be done with a website/blog/forums but the reach of Facebook is of course immense, global and pervasive in pretty much every country. So Facebook is different because of its scale, network effect and ease of discoverability. The last issue with Facebook I would point out is that due to its corporate structure and size Facebook is only accountable to Mark Zuckerberg, and Mark Zuckerberg is accountable to no one. I think the real issue facing society is that Facebook will always err on the side of user engagement unless forced to behave otherwise. If Facebook was really just about "connecting people" which I take to be innocuous communication between users and sharing pictures of kids/pets/etc. then they would have to strip out the features that allow their worst communities to form and operate. But Facebook knows that crazy grandparents sharing conspiracy theories and racist drivel drives engagement and so that content largely remains. It's up to our societies to solve this problem, because history has shown that Facebook will only do the right thing when forced to.
- 3grdlurker 5y ago
  Because right now we only have the capability to regulate content where it is stored and after the fact of its storage, hence Facebook. But your suggestions are all great ideas—all forms of on-device scanning which, last I checked, HN was all up in arms against when it was Apple who was about to do it.
- corobo 5y ago
  > what makes Facebook special in this chain such that it is their responsibility to perform the filtering Distribution. Each step until Facebook doesn't involve sharing with others, it's between you and a machine until that
pumaontheprowl 5y ago
If Facebook is responsible for the content users see on their site, how is Apple not responsible for the content users see on Safari? I really don't see how you can argue for banning the Instagram app while the Safari app still allows users to visit the Instagram website and view the exact same content. Ultimately, this is the textbook definition of virtue signalling. Apple was never going to ban Facebook; they just want to let people know they oppose slavery (their own factories excluded of course).
- DrBenCarson 5y ago
  Because Facebook amplifies or suppresses all content based on revenue implications. You're not seeing user content as submitted by users. A post with 10 likes from a day ago will be presented ahead of a post with 15 likes from 20m ago if Facebook thinks it has a better chance of getting you to engage (i.e. infuriates you because it's ludicrous misinformation) Apple doesn't make revenue based on some StumbleUpon-like Safari experience where they dictate the content in your Safari window.
nell 5y ago
Apple/Google have enabled mobile internet usage which has fundamentally enabled both legal and illegal activities. Safari is the way they do it. Still, in the absence of mobile phones, a lot of these illegal activities would slow down. Every tech platform is enabling illegal activities. Glorifying Apple and Google here is a mistake this article makes.
jensensbutton 5y ago
Apple is currently, literally, providing user data to a regime engaged in forced labor and ethnic cleansing (China, Uyghers). Point isn't that human trafficking is OK, but that parent isn't incorrect about Apple playing the moral authority being laughable.

by hugi 5y ago

mensetmanusman 5y ago

Facebook/IG is bigger than the Internet in many countries, because it arrives for free on phones, and because it arrived before people started generating web content in their locale. For many of these people, Facebook == Internet. This is not to discourage what you are saying, it’s just a note that what Safari shows is kind of arbitrary in the abstract.

cft 5y ago

The analogy here is mandating Safari to block individual URLs as a condition for it remaining in the app store. Nobody here defends human trafficking. People defend freedom of speech and open computing.

jmull 5y ago
> People defend freedom of speech and open computing. But what does that have to do with Facebook? Facebook is not a free speech platform. They built and maintain their social network based on content moderation. Their social network, of course, is the reason anyone uses Facebook. Anyway, Safari doesn't host and moderate the content of the internet, but Facebook certainly does host and moderate the content of Facebook. There's no real logical connection here.

danbruc 5y ago

I write a document with illegal content [1] in Word, use Adobe to turn into a PDF, upload it with Chrome through Verizon to Facebook from where a different users downloads it through AT&T and Safari to print it on their Canon printer. And the internet backbone is also somewhere in-between. And the computer manufacturers. And the operating system. And thousands of libraries. If we want this content filtered out, what makes Facebook special in this chain such that it is their responsibility to perform the filtering? Why is Word not responsible for preventing the creation of the document in the first place? Why does the service provider not prevent the upload? Why does the printer not refuse to print the document? Or a screen blur the content? I am not arguing that it is not the responsibility of Facebook, I just want to point out that - at least at first look - this seems to be pretty arbitrary pick. So what makes Facebook special? Is it just a matter of practicality because Facebook is the single point of failure in that chain that can not be bypassed? [1] Let us ignore all the complications due to different jurisdictions.

jackcosgrove 5y ago
> what makes Facebook special in this chain Responsibility should be proportional to profit. I am not even sure Facebook is the most profitable link in this chain, but it probably is. > Is it just a matter of practicality because Facebook is the single point of failure in that chain that can not be bypassed And they have the best capability for that reason.
wavefunction 5y ago
>what makes Facebook special In your scenario they seem to be the place other people are "discovering" and downloading the PDF from. Perhaps gathering together to discuss whatever is in the PDF and reinforce each other's beliefs about the content. This could of course be done with a website/blog/forums but the reach of Facebook is of course immense, global and pervasive in pretty much every country. So Facebook is different because of its scale, network effect and ease of discoverability. The last issue with Facebook I would point out is that due to its corporate structure and size Facebook is only accountable to Mark Zuckerberg, and Mark Zuckerberg is accountable to no one. I think the real issue facing society is that Facebook will always err on the side of user engagement unless forced to behave otherwise. If Facebook was really just about "connecting people" which I take to be innocuous communication between users and sharing pictures of kids/pets/etc. then they would have to strip out the features that allow their worst communities to form and operate. But Facebook knows that crazy grandparents sharing conspiracy theories and racist drivel drives engagement and so that content largely remains. It's up to our societies to solve this problem, because history has shown that Facebook will only do the right thing when forced to.
3grdlurker 5y ago
Because right now we only have the capability to regulate content where it is stored and after the fact of its storage, hence Facebook. But your suggestions are all great ideas—all forms of on-device scanning which, last I checked, HN was all up in arms against when it was Apple who was about to do it.
corobo 5y ago
> what makes Facebook special in this chain such that it is their responsibility to perform the filtering Distribution. Each step until Facebook doesn't involve sharing with others, it's between you and a machine until that

pumaontheprowl 5y ago

If Facebook is responsible for the content users see on their site, how is Apple not responsible for the content users see on Safari? I really don't see how you can argue for banning the Instagram app while the Safari app still allows users to visit the Instagram website and view the exact same content. Ultimately, this is the textbook definition of virtue signalling. Apple was never going to ban Facebook; they just want to let people know they oppose slavery (their own factories excluded of course).

DrBenCarson 5y ago
Because Facebook amplifies or suppresses all content based on revenue implications. You're not seeing user content as submitted by users. A post with 10 likes from a day ago will be presented ahead of a post with 15 likes from 20m ago if Facebook thinks it has a better chance of getting you to engage (i.e. infuriates you because it's ludicrous misinformation) Apple doesn't make revenue based on some StumbleUpon-like Safari experience where they dictate the content in your Safari window.

nell 5y ago

Apple/Google have enabled mobile internet usage which has fundamentally enabled both legal and illegal activities. Safari is the way they do it. Still, in the absence of mobile phones, a lot of these illegal activities would slow down. Every tech platform is enabling illegal activities. Glorifying Apple and Google here is a mistake this article makes.

jensensbutton 5y ago

Apple is currently, literally, providing user data to a regime engaged in forced labor and ethnic cleansing (China, Uyghers). Point isn't that human trafficking is OK, but that parent isn't incorrect about Apple playing the moral authority being laughable.