4 ms·

I wouldn't blame megaphones for the fact that "idiots" use them. Nor would I expect megaphone manufacturers to dictate what messages can be amplified using them

I wouldn't blame megaphones for the fact that "idiots" use them. Nor would I expect megaphone manufacturers to dictate what messages can be amplified using them. Nor would I expect megaphone retailers to determine somehow whether a person was an "idiot" before selling them a megaphone. If someone uses a megaphone in an anti-social manner, that's a matter for the police to handle.

lijogdfljk 5y ago
So i think this is a breakdown of our previous mindset on the matter. I don't know what future is "right", what the answer is.. but i think it is important for us to at least recognize that in the past, a crazy person on the street corner was limited quite a bit on velocity. This megaphone is a poor example imo. A far better example would be broadcast television. We're now broadcasting everyone straight into not just American homes, but world wide. So i ask, because i don't know, how does broadcast television differ from a megaphone in requirements? What responsibility is there on broadcast television what doesn't exist for a street corner?
tspike 5y ago
Would you expect megaphone manufacturers to give souped up models capable of drowning out other megaphones to only the most controversial, destructive people?
michaelmrose 5y ago
Analogies are nearly useless in making an argument Facebook is an online platform with real time access to users communications and metrics and analysis of how it's used which allow it to make reasonable predictions on how it's going to be used in the future. Comparing it to dumb hardware is ridiculous. Their ability to predict the negative effect of amplifying crazy provides a moral imperative to mitigate that harm. In case you don't understand there is a difference between the platform allowing Bob to tell Sam a harmful lie, and letting Bob tell 200 people who tell 200 people ..., and different yet from algorithmically promoting Bob's lie to hundreds of thousands of people who are statistically vulnerable to it.
kelnos 5y ago
Is it a problem, however, if the megaphone manufacturers specifically look for people who spread misinformation, and sell them the loudest megaphones with the most reach? FB has not directly done that, but they have consistently refused to acknowledge that selling the biggest megaphones to the people who create the most "engagement" (aka money for FB) tend to be the types of people who generate false information and outrage. Their publicized efforts to shut down fake accounts and pages set up specifically to spread misinformation is perfunctory, and simply something for them to point at and say, "see, we're doing things to fix the problem", when they're merely playing whack-a-mole with symptoms, know what the root of the problem is, but refuse to fix it because it's their cash cow.

lijogdfljk 5y ago

So i think this is a breakdown of our previous mindset on the matter. I don't know what future is "right", what the answer is.. but i think it is important for us to at least recognize that in the past, a crazy person on the street corner was limited quite a bit on velocity. This megaphone is a poor example imo. A far better example would be broadcast television. We're now broadcasting everyone straight into not just American homes, but world wide. So i ask, because i don't know, how does broadcast television differ from a megaphone in requirements? What responsibility is there on broadcast television what doesn't exist for a street corner?

tspike 5y ago

Would you expect megaphone manufacturers to give souped up models capable of drowning out other megaphones to only the most controversial, destructive people?

michaelmrose 5y ago

Analogies are nearly useless in making an argument Facebook is an online platform with real time access to users communications and metrics and analysis of how it's used which allow it to make reasonable predictions on how it's going to be used in the future. Comparing it to dumb hardware is ridiculous. Their ability to predict the negative effect of amplifying crazy provides a moral imperative to mitigate that harm. In case you don't understand there is a difference between the platform allowing Bob to tell Sam a harmful lie, and letting Bob tell 200 people who tell 200 people ..., and different yet from algorithmically promoting Bob's lie to hundreds of thousands of people who are statistically vulnerable to it.

kelnos 5y ago

Is it a problem, however, if the megaphone manufacturers specifically look for people who spread misinformation, and sell them the loudest megaphones with the most reach? FB has not directly done that, but they have consistently refused to acknowledge that selling the biggest megaphones to the people who create the most "engagement" (aka money for FB) tend to be the types of people who generate false information and outrage. Their publicized efforts to shut down fake accounts and pages set up specifically to spread misinformation is perfunctory, and simply something for them to point at and say, "see, we're doing things to fix the problem", when they're merely playing whack-a-mole with symptoms, know what the root of the problem is, but refuse to fix it because it's their cash cow.