4 ms·

>making FB responsible for the consequences of the content they promote This is the key point to recognize. It's not about making Facebook responsible for eve

>making FB responsible for the consequences of the content they promote This is the key point to recognize. It's not about making Facebook responsible for everything anyone posts to Facebook.

toss1 5y ago
If 1) just one person posts it, and 2) it is displayed in a literal reverse-chronological timeline, and 3) displayed only to the people who directly follow them, then yes. But, as soon as FB starts analyzing it, curating it, and using their humans or algorithms to promote, amplify, or extend the spread of it, FB becomes responsible. That item has been selected, curated, approved, and amplified by FB, by their criteria, whoever first posted it (whether the post was from a truly organic FB member, a RUS dezinformatsiya shop, a FB employee, or some other source is irrelevant at that point). This is no less responsibility than a news editor choosing which of their reporters' stories, or newswire stories to publish on the front vs 17th page, or run at the head of the national news, or just send to the local stations to run as they please. The editors didn't write the content, but they DID curate, select, and selectively amplify (or de-amplify) it. FB has the freedom to curate and amplify what they choose for their own purposes. It is long past time for FB to live up to, and be held to, the responsibilities of their editorial actions (regardless of the level of automation - it's FB's algos, not the users'). [edit: formatting list]
- miracle2k 5y ago
  First, a website losing safe harbor protection for some guy's link to pirated content because they use a "we'll show you this post because you previously clicked like on something else" system is bad policy, and we must reject it. Second, all the things that the mob wants to hold Facebook accountable for ("genocide", "election interference", "disinformation" and others) are perfectly legal content for any newspaper or publisher to disseminate, so I'm not sure what the desired course of action is here.
  - toss1 5y ago
    The "first" comment is offtopic; pirated content is not the issue here, and in any case, there are solutions FB can use to that, such as 1) not amplifying sht without checking it for something other than their profit criteria (which they already do for various types of unacceptable content w/tens of 1000s of contractors), and 2) using the usual immediate takedown processes. It is not merely a mob that wants to hold FB accountable - it is people who actually think about more than a relexive mantra that all tech should be exempt from responsibility. If the content that actually inflames genocide, election interference, and disinformation (yes, it is all real despite your clever quoting to act as if it these are some kind of empty accusations) is indeed perfectly legal for any newspaper or publisher to disseminate, then FB should have zero problem being held just as responsible as any newspaper, and should indeed volunteer to be held to those standards. Yet in contrast, FB instantly, reflexively, and vigorously opposes any* suggestion that they should be anything but an ignorant carrier like a telephone company that connects two parties in a tel call. The mere fact of FBs vigorous opposition shows that FB knows that they would have deep problems living up to such a standard. It is not legal to yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, and it is not legal to incite riots or insurrection, yet FB has, via its relentless amplification of both dezinformatsiya and insurrection incitement, resulted in real deaths. The desired course of action is to 1) implement steps to prevent this sort of action in the future, and 2) to hold to account those responsible for those actions, who quite clearly showed wanton disregard for the consequences of their actions.
    - miracle2k 5y ago
      > The "first" comment is offtopic; pirated content is not the issue here, We are not talking about links to piratebay. If I post a picture of a cat, someone else may own the copyright to that; there is no way for a reviewer to tell. This matters a great deal because by arguing against Safe Harbor you want to make Facebook legally responsible for stolen cat pictures because how they order their newsfeed with a popularity algorithm. Today, any website is already responsible for their own publishing, and has Safe-Harbor for user-comments; the New York Times benefits from this as well. If you want to make a narrow argument that Facebook should not have Safe-Harbor for illegal outcomes attributable to the algorithm itself, in its totality over all of Facebook content, rather than any individual post, then by all means. I am sure an intrepid prosecutor could pursue this line of argument today. > The desired course of action is to 1) implement steps to prevent this sort of action in the future, and 2) to hold to account those responsible for those actions, who quite clearly showed wanton disregard for the consequences of their actions. That seems pretty generic. Prosecutors in the US are extremely powerful; they are populist, as they often need to be elected; their Democratic base is incensed. They have every reason and incentive to prosecute those who have posted on Facebook for Riot Act violations; this doesn't seem to have happened; why?

>making FB responsible for the consequences of the content they promote This is the key point to recognize. It's not about making Facebook responsible for everything anyone posts to Facebook.

toss1 5y ago

If 1) just one person posts it, and 2) it is displayed in a literal reverse-chronological timeline, and 3) displayed only to the people who directly follow them, then yes. But, as soon as FB starts analyzing it, curating it, and using their humans or algorithms to promote, amplify, or extend the spread of it, FB becomes responsible. That item has been selected, curated, approved, and amplified by FB, by their criteria, whoever first posted it (whether the post was from a truly organic FB member, a RUS dezinformatsiya shop, a FB employee, or some other source is irrelevant at that point). This is no less responsibility than a news editor choosing which of their reporters' stories, or newswire stories to publish on the front vs 17th page, or run at the head of the national news, or just send to the local stations to run as they please. The editors didn't write the content, but they DID curate, select, and selectively amplify (or de-amplify) it. FB has the freedom to curate and amplify what they choose for their own purposes. It is long past time for FB to live up to, and be held to, the responsibilities of their editorial actions (regardless of the level of automation - it's FB's algos, not the users'). [edit: formatting list]

miracle2k 5y ago
First, a website losing safe harbor protection for some guy's link to pirated content because they use a "we'll show you this post because you previously clicked like on something else" system is bad policy, and we must reject it. Second, all the things that the mob wants to hold Facebook accountable for ("genocide", "election interference", "disinformation" and others) are perfectly legal content for any newspaper or publisher to disseminate, so I'm not sure what the desired course of action is here.
- toss1 5y ago
  The "first" comment is offtopic; pirated content is not the issue here, and in any case, there are solutions FB can use to that, such as 1) not amplifying sht without checking it for something other than their profit criteria (which they already do for various types of unacceptable content w/tens of 1000s of contractors), and 2) using the usual immediate takedown processes. It is not merely a mob that wants to hold FB accountable - it is people who actually think about more than a relexive mantra that all tech should be exempt from responsibility. If the content that actually inflames genocide, election interference, and disinformation (yes, it is all real despite your clever quoting to act as if it these are some kind of empty accusations) is indeed perfectly legal for any newspaper or publisher to disseminate, then FB should have zero problem being held just as responsible as any newspaper, and should indeed volunteer to be held to those standards. Yet in contrast, FB instantly, reflexively, and vigorously opposes any* suggestion that they should be anything but an ignorant carrier like a telephone company that connects two parties in a tel call. The mere fact of FBs vigorous opposition shows that FB knows that they would have deep problems living up to such a standard. It is not legal to yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, and it is not legal to incite riots or insurrection, yet FB has, via its relentless amplification of both dezinformatsiya and insurrection incitement, resulted in real deaths. The desired course of action is to 1) implement steps to prevent this sort of action in the future, and 2) to hold to account those responsible for those actions, who quite clearly showed wanton disregard for the consequences of their actions.
  - miracle2k 5y ago
    > The "first" comment is offtopic; pirated content is not the issue here, We are not talking about links to piratebay. If I post a picture of a cat, someone else may own the copyright to that; there is no way for a reviewer to tell. This matters a great deal because by arguing against Safe Harbor you want to make Facebook legally responsible for stolen cat pictures because how they order their newsfeed with a popularity algorithm. Today, any website is already responsible for their own publishing, and has Safe-Harbor for user-comments; the New York Times benefits from this as well. If you want to make a narrow argument that Facebook should not have Safe-Harbor for illegal outcomes attributable to the algorithm itself, in its totality over all of Facebook content, rather than any individual post, then by all means. I am sure an intrepid prosecutor could pursue this line of argument today. > The desired course of action is to 1) implement steps to prevent this sort of action in the future, and 2) to hold to account those responsible for those actions, who quite clearly showed wanton disregard for the consequences of their actions. That seems pretty generic. Prosecutors in the US are extremely powerful; they are populist, as they often need to be elected; their Democratic base is incensed. They have every reason and incentive to prosecute those who have posted on Facebook for Riot Act violations; this doesn't seem to have happened; why?