4 ms·

I am inclined to agree with you on automation being imperfect and that some things might not be automatable for now, at our current level of tech. However, I w

I am inclined to agree with you on automation being imperfect and that some things might not be automatable for now, at our current level of tech. However, I would add, that also non-automated processes have imperfection. There can be internal incentives to allow such ads. The FB culture is rich of processes which are profit-oriented rather than ethics-oriented. Who is to say, that such ads would not have been approved by some spineless group working at FB? I would not deem it impossible. Maybe after the 1000th ad you approve, you might become sort of blunt. Add to that a small signal from above, that this add would bring a lot of profit and you might wave it through as "Just another ad, how bad can it truly be?". I am unconvinced, that many people working at FB have high ethical standards and even less convinced, that FB puts people with high ethical standards in the position to approve ads. So in total, I am not convinced, that FB is actually capable of completely preventing such ads, even if they do not automate. This however, is not to say, that they should not be held accountable. They should. In full force. It is rather to say, that their business model is not appropriate and they cannot guarantee it to be ethically OK. (Ethically OK apart from the already ethically very questionable act of targetting ads and spying on everyone they can in the first place and doing that for their own gain / money.)

somehnacct3757 5y ago
We are dancing around a conversation about accountability. Automated processes (or algorithms, romantically) currently diffuse accountability. This is a problem because we rely on rule of law to keep the peace. We would like corporations profiting off the algorithms to be held accountable, but this is hard today and lawmakers have moved too slowly on a solution. One alternative is to outlaw algorithms operating at a scale larger than our current accountability framework can handle. The reason this works is because it forces a human back into the chain of accountability. The corp will pass the potato and fire the employee who approved the ad. The employee's incentives are slightly more nuanced than you wrote - they want to maximize dollars while avoiding being fired. Since the employee is a regular human and not a corp with superlawyers and deep pockets, there's a better chance of criminal or civil followup targeting the former employee. With this accountable-scale bottleneck in place, we now have incentive for lawmakers and corporations to legislate the original problem and remove the bottleneck. That's why I think GP's proposal is a step forward. Even though the net harm may be the same at automation-scale and human-scale, the accountability envelope is closer to the desired end state.
- zamadatix 5y ago
  Accountability is a lot more than having a name you can legally blame. Firing and suing ad approval worker #1632 for mistakenly approving 8 ads doesn't provide accountability towards solving the problem it provides a scapegoat.
- anamax 5y ago
  A better alternative is to simply ignore how the companies arrive at a result and instead just look at what they do. Why do I care how Facebook implements their moderation? Their liability should be independent of their processes.
treis 5y ago
>I am inclined to agree with you on automation being imperfect and that some things might not be automatable for now, at our current level of tech. From TFA: >The group pulled the ads before they were posted or paid for I would not expect actual approval to come until the ads were paid for or posted. Otherwise, bad actors can test the automated filters for free until they find a way around them. Maybe the bad ads still get through, but IMHO the article is misleading.

somehnacct3757 5y ago

We are dancing around a conversation about accountability. Automated processes (or algorithms, romantically) currently diffuse accountability. This is a problem because we rely on rule of law to keep the peace. We would like corporations profiting off the algorithms to be held accountable, but this is hard today and lawmakers have moved too slowly on a solution. One alternative is to outlaw algorithms operating at a scale larger than our current accountability framework can handle. The reason this works is because it forces a human back into the chain of accountability. The corp will pass the potato and fire the employee who approved the ad. The employee's incentives are slightly more nuanced than you wrote - they want to maximize dollars while avoiding being fired. Since the employee is a regular human and not a corp with superlawyers and deep pockets, there's a better chance of criminal or civil followup targeting the former employee. With this accountable-scale bottleneck in place, we now have incentive for lawmakers and corporations to legislate the original problem and remove the bottleneck. That's why I think GP's proposal is a step forward. Even though the net harm may be the same at automation-scale and human-scale, the accountability envelope is closer to the desired end state.

zamadatix 5y ago
Accountability is a lot more than having a name you can legally blame. Firing and suing ad approval worker #1632 for mistakenly approving 8 ads doesn't provide accountability towards solving the problem it provides a scapegoat.
anamax 5y ago
A better alternative is to simply ignore how the companies arrive at a result and instead just look at what they do. Why do I care how Facebook implements their moderation? Their liability should be independent of their processes.

treis 5y ago

>I am inclined to agree with you on automation being imperfect and that some things might not be automatable for now, at our current level of tech. From TFA: >The group pulled the ads before they were posted or paid for I would not expect actual approval to come until the ads were paid for or posted. Otherwise, bad actors can test the automated filters for free until they find a way around them. Maybe the bad ads still get through, but IMHO the article is misleading.