4 ms·

Okay, but how far down the stack does it go? If you are working at Cisco, should you be similarly horrified that human trafficking is being arranged using your

by cwyers 5y ago

Okay, but how far down the stack does it go? If you are working at Cisco, should you be similarly horrified that human trafficking is being arranged using your company's routers? If you work at a Tier 1 Internet carrier, should you be horrified that people are arranging human trafficking over the backbone that you run? (Even if Facebook is more responsible than those parties, I think it's easy to understand how the median Facebook employee wouldn't see it that way, especially if their day-to-day job is something not directly having to do with communities/the newsfeed.)

LightG 5y ago
Yes.
ipv6ipv4 5y ago
Well, Apple did apparently set the example here. If you know about it? Yes.
JumpCrisscross 5y ago
> how far down the stack does it go? There are no hard rules, just values and precedents. If I were to summarize the precedent, it would be a three-prong test: Do you know about the behavior? Do you contribute to it? Do you have the power to stop it? If (1) and (2), we're at the Nuremberg threshold. That is, if the crime at hand rises to that of crimes against humanity, (1) and (2) alone should be enough. If it doesn't rise to that level, test (3) comes into question. "Stop" is an ambiguous term, as is "crimes against humanity," so there is a lot of subjectivity here. But to take your analogy, no, a San Francisco warehouse worker at Cisco wouldn't be culpable for e.g. their CFO bribing a foreign official. A content buyer at Instagram isn't responsible for the slave ads. But engineers deploying the ad systems, incentivized by ad metrics? Business development? Any executive at Facebook? Somewhat to totally culpable.
- solveit 5y ago
  > If I were to summarize the precedent, it would be a three-prong test: Do you know about the behavior? Do you contribute to it? Do you have the power to stop it? Have you ever voted for any US representative or senator that got elected and wasn't Barbara Lee? Congratulations, your tests (1) and (2) say you're a war criminal.
  - howaboutnope 5y ago
    Do you take issue with the validity of the test or are you just making observations?
blunte 5y ago
There's a big difference here. Facebook's apparent purpose is to capture audiences and feed them ads. Cisco's purpose (was... I have no idea what they're up to these days) it to enable low level communication via their infrastructure products. These are so very different... Now, if Cisco were negotiating preferential deals with oppressive regimes or companies that were well known for committing what most would consider to be crimes against humanity, then Cisco should choose not to sell to those groups. This is exactly what I'm suggesting FB do.

by cwyers 5y ago

LightG 5y ago

Yes.

ipv6ipv4 5y ago

Well, Apple did apparently set the example here. If you know about it? Yes.

JumpCrisscross 5y ago

> how far down the stack does it go? There are no hard rules, just values and precedents. If I were to summarize the precedent, it would be a three-prong test: Do you know about the behavior? Do you contribute to it? Do you have the power to stop it? If (1) and (2), we're at the Nuremberg threshold. That is, if the crime at hand rises to that of crimes against humanity, (1) and (2) alone should be enough. If it doesn't rise to that level, test (3) comes into question. "Stop" is an ambiguous term, as is "crimes against humanity," so there is a lot of subjectivity here. But to take your analogy, no, a San Francisco warehouse worker at Cisco wouldn't be culpable for e.g. their CFO bribing a foreign official. A content buyer at Instagram isn't responsible for the slave ads. But engineers deploying the ad systems, incentivized by ad metrics? Business development? Any executive at Facebook? Somewhat to totally culpable.

solveit 5y ago
> If I were to summarize the precedent, it would be a three-prong test: Do you know about the behavior? Do you contribute to it? Do you have the power to stop it? Have you ever voted for any US representative or senator that got elected and wasn't Barbara Lee? Congratulations, your tests (1) and (2) say you're a war criminal.
- howaboutnope 5y ago
  Do you take issue with the validity of the test or are you just making observations?

blunte 5y ago

There's a big difference here. Facebook's apparent purpose is to capture audiences and feed them ads. Cisco's purpose (was... I have no idea what they're up to these days) it to enable low level communication via their infrastructure products. These are so very different... Now, if Cisco were negotiating preferential deals with oppressive regimes or companies that were well known for committing what most would consider to be crimes against humanity, then Cisco should choose not to sell to those groups. This is exactly what I'm suggesting FB do.