4 ms·

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 clicke

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?
  - toss1 5y ago
    >>by arguing against Safe Harbor you want to make Facebook legally responsible for stolen cat pictures I totally agree that we shouldn't hold them responsible for stolen cat pics posted, and I'd argue that 1) FB can and TBF, probably are, taking measures, and 2) for the copyright issue, I would argue that they should have the same safe harbor as anyone else - if FB receives a takedown notice and responds promptly (as defined however in the safe harbor regs), they are fine. The users would see a 'Sorry, this image/audio/link/whatever removed due to copyright issues." message. I see no reason this would work any differently regardless of the FB amplification algo - only more people would see the disappointing message when it got yanked after notification. >>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? You'd have to ask them directly; I've no access to their thoughts. Maybe they are already. Maybe they are discussing it. Maybe it takes a long time because it would be a difficult case to build against a new technological structure and they're already working the problem. I could see similar opportunities to use RICO statutes, but IANAL, and don't know how to solve that problem in detail. Maybe FB donates to every prosecutor in the country. Maybe the prosecutors don't see the opportunity we described, or think this would be breaking too much new legal ground and want the legislature to give more clear go-ahead first. <-- That is what I think is needed by making curation teams and algos responsible in (roughly) the same way that editors are responsible.

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?
- toss1 5y ago
  >>by arguing against Safe Harbor you want to make Facebook legally responsible for stolen cat pictures I totally agree that we shouldn't hold them responsible for stolen cat pics posted, and I'd argue that 1) FB can and TBF, probably are, taking measures, and 2) for the copyright issue, I would argue that they should have the same safe harbor as anyone else - if FB receives a takedown notice and responds promptly (as defined however in the safe harbor regs), they are fine. The users would see a 'Sorry, this image/audio/link/whatever removed due to copyright issues." message. I see no reason this would work any differently regardless of the FB amplification algo - only more people would see the disappointing message when it got yanked after notification. >>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? You'd have to ask them directly; I've no access to their thoughts. Maybe they are already. Maybe they are discussing it. Maybe it takes a long time because it would be a difficult case to build against a new technological structure and they're already working the problem. I could see similar opportunities to use RICO statutes, but IANAL, and don't know how to solve that problem in detail. Maybe FB donates to every prosecutor in the country. Maybe the prosecutors don't see the opportunity we described, or think this would be breaking too much new legal ground and want the legislature to give more clear go-ahead first. <-- That is what I think is needed by making curation teams and algos responsible in (roughly) the same way that editors are responsible.