4 ms·

I think people fundamentally disagree here. I would attribute the entire (read 100%) responsibility for the Rohingya Genocide or other similar events to the per

I think people fundamentally disagree here. I would attribute the entire (read 100%) responsibility for the Rohingya Genocide or other similar events to the perpetrators. Facebook is just another tool, and its creators bear no more blame for the actions of their users in the real world than the manufactures of the vehicles driven by the Burmese military.

PuppyTailWags 4y ago
There are laws put the onus on banks to proactively determine that their services aren't used to fund terrorism and multiple funky/opaque processes in banking specifically for that purpose. It kind of makes sense to me to have social media companies upheld to a similar standard that they are not used to organize terrorism or other war crimes.
- thegrimmest 4y ago
  I'm not sure I agree with these laws. They are very difficult to actually enforce to an objective standard. They also transfer the burden of law enforcement away from police departments and on to private organizations. What it translates to in practice is a bunch of (mostly irrelevant) mandatory training for employees, and an approval from an auditor who isn't very familiar with the business. I think police (and no one else) should do policing.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - PuppyTailWags 4y ago
    > What it translates to in practice is a bunch of (mostly irrelevant) mandatory training for employees, and an approval from an auditor who isn't very familiar with the business. In the context of ensuring a bank doesn't transfer money to terrorists, this is completely wrong. Banks have a whole list of operations and processes, and failing this is enforced by actual jail time. This is why "know your customer" exists in banking. In the context of terrorism, there is no police enforcement regarding terrorists; often, we are talking military enforcement.
    - thegrimmest 4y ago
      Yes, but my point is that "transferring money to someone" is not a true crime. It doesn't have a victim. And yes, our governments should use military/diplomatic channels to fight terrorism directly - that's what they're for.
      - PuppyTailWags 4y ago
        > Yes, but my point is that "transferring money to someone" is not a true crime. It doesn't have a victim. This is also incorrect. Transferring money to a terrorist organization is a crime because countries have declared it illegal. Of course well-funded terrorists have victims and enablement of well-funded terrorism has clear victims. And yes, the government is using military and diplomatic channels to fight terrorism directly-- by ensuring the resources they have access to are limited.
  - wpietri 4y ago
    There are two possible things you could mean by that. One is that you think a lot of things just shouldn't be enforced, and that we should allow a lot more harm than we do now. Genocide? The other is that you think we should have a lot more police to take over the harm-reducing regulatory actions now in place. That we should take the tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of social media moderators now working, but make them government employees and give them guns. I can't decide which is more cartoonishly evil.
    - thegrimmest 4y ago
      I don't see why people working in an office need guns, but yes, enforcement of laws should be done by... law enforcement. This isn't too controversial really, if I make a credible threat to someone online, it's a criminal matter for the police. Just as if I had sent it in the mail. The same should be true for all other types of crime (fraud, money laundering, etc.). Police should (and do) conduct investigations and arrest offenders. Social media moderators exist to protect the public image of the platform, and enforce community guidelines. They should not be burdened with law enforcement simply because we can't be arsed to do proper police work.
  - riversflow 4y ago
    You realize that other groups already do policing? IRS, EPA, OSHA, USPS, hell the secret service will get involved if you are forging currency.
wpietri 4y ago
Responsibility is not zero sum. The people who pulled the triggers? Responsible. The people who gave those people the orders? Responsible. People who told them where to find the people they killed? Responsible. Arms dealers who sold them the guns? If they had any inkling that this was a possible outcome, then they share in the responsibility. The people behind the legacy media efforts that whipped people into a frenzy? Responsible. And so on. Facebook is not like a screwdriver, a simple, neutral tool that is occasionally used to harm. Facebook is an incredibly complex tool for connecting humans, a tool with all sorts of biases that shape the nature and velocity of social interaction. People have known for decades that online communication systems enable harm. This was a well-understood fact long before Facebook existed. Facebook is morally responsible for that harm (as are the perps, etc, etc). Something they understand perfectly well because they do a lot to mitigate that harm while crowing about how socially responsible they are being. You might disagree with most ethicists on this, as well as with Facebook itself. But you'll have an uphill struggle. Even the example you pick, vehicles, doesn't work, because car manufacturers have spent decades working to mitigate opportunities for the tools they create to cause harm. Now that cars are getting smarter, that harm reduction will include preventing drivers from running the cars into people.
- thegrimmest 4y ago
  Responsibility is zero sum, or any conversations about it are meaningless. This is quite handily illustrated by your comment actually - where does it end? How much of an "inkling" must people have to carry responsibility? It doesn't sound like a question of fact exactly. The only way to objectively agree about responsibility is to use an actor/agent model, where actors are entirely responsible for their actions, and only actions which directly harm others are considered. Otherwise we're discussing which butterflies are responsible for which hurricanes. I'm happy to be wrong here, but I just don't see an alternative framework that can realistically, objectively, draw actionable boundaries around responsibility for action. This by the way is the model that is used in common law. Facebook being a complex tool strengthens my point. Should providers of complex tools be responsible for every possible use of them? Is it not possible to provide a complex tool "as is" without warranty? Wouldn't constraining tool makers in this way be fundamentally harmful? > online communication systems enable harm... Facebook is morally responsible for that harm Everything can be seen to "enable harm". Facebook being morally responsible is not a statement of fact, it's an opinion. Facebook's actions to mitigate are a) to evade/delay regulatory action, b) to maintain their public image or c) by a small group of activist employees. Only a) and b) align with their fiduciary duty to shareholders.
drc500free 4y ago
Facebook could have chosen to be a completely neutral platform. They could have followed the ISP model, making Facebook another platform like email, RSS, or http. They just had to not make editorial decisions - leave the feed sorted by recency, and only remove illegal material. This is what safe harbor provisions assumed a company would do, allowing platforms who simply pass information between parties to avoid liability for that information. But they wanted to be valued higher, so they explicitly chose to instead step into the editor's role and became responsible for the content on the platform.

PuppyTailWags 4y ago

There are laws put the onus on banks to proactively determine that their services aren't used to fund terrorism and multiple funky/opaque processes in banking specifically for that purpose. It kind of makes sense to me to have social media companies upheld to a similar standard that they are not used to organize terrorism or other war crimes.

thegrimmest 4y ago
I'm not sure I agree with these laws. They are very difficult to actually enforce to an objective standard. They also transfer the burden of law enforcement away from police departments and on to private organizations. What it translates to in practice is a bunch of (mostly irrelevant) mandatory training for employees, and an approval from an auditor who isn't very familiar with the business. I think police (and no one else) should do policing.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- PuppyTailWags 4y ago
  > What it translates to in practice is a bunch of (mostly irrelevant) mandatory training for employees, and an approval from an auditor who isn't very familiar with the business. In the context of ensuring a bank doesn't transfer money to terrorists, this is completely wrong. Banks have a whole list of operations and processes, and failing this is enforced by actual jail time. This is why "know your customer" exists in banking. In the context of terrorism, there is no police enforcement regarding terrorists; often, we are talking military enforcement.
  - thegrimmest 4y ago
    Yes, but my point is that "transferring money to someone" is not a true crime. It doesn't have a victim. And yes, our governments should use military/diplomatic channels to fight terrorism directly - that's what they're for.
    - PuppyTailWags 4y ago
      > Yes, but my point is that "transferring money to someone" is not a true crime. It doesn't have a victim. This is also incorrect. Transferring money to a terrorist organization is a crime because countries have declared it illegal. Of course well-funded terrorists have victims and enablement of well-funded terrorism has clear victims. And yes, the government is using military and diplomatic channels to fight terrorism directly-- by ensuring the resources they have access to are limited.
- wpietri 4y ago
  There are two possible things you could mean by that. One is that you think a lot of things just shouldn't be enforced, and that we should allow a lot more harm than we do now. Genocide? The other is that you think we should have a lot more police to take over the harm-reducing regulatory actions now in place. That we should take the tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of social media moderators now working, but make them government employees and give them guns. I can't decide which is more cartoonishly evil.
  - thegrimmest 4y ago
    I don't see why people working in an office need guns, but yes, enforcement of laws should be done by... law enforcement. This isn't too controversial really, if I make a credible threat to someone online, it's a criminal matter for the police. Just as if I had sent it in the mail. The same should be true for all other types of crime (fraud, money laundering, etc.). Police should (and do) conduct investigations and arrest offenders. Social media moderators exist to protect the public image of the platform, and enforce community guidelines. They should not be burdened with law enforcement simply because we can't be arsed to do proper police work.
- riversflow 4y ago
  You realize that other groups already do policing? IRS, EPA, OSHA, USPS, hell the secret service will get involved if you are forging currency.

wpietri 4y ago

Responsibility is not zero sum. The people who pulled the triggers? Responsible. The people who gave those people the orders? Responsible. People who told them where to find the people they killed? Responsible. Arms dealers who sold them the guns? If they had any inkling that this was a possible outcome, then they share in the responsibility. The people behind the legacy media efforts that whipped people into a frenzy? Responsible. And so on. Facebook is not like a screwdriver, a simple, neutral tool that is occasionally used to harm. Facebook is an incredibly complex tool for connecting humans, a tool with all sorts of biases that shape the nature and velocity of social interaction. People have known for decades that online communication systems enable harm. This was a well-understood fact long before Facebook existed. Facebook is morally responsible for that harm (as are the perps, etc, etc). Something they understand perfectly well because they do a lot to mitigate that harm while crowing about how socially responsible they are being. You might disagree with most ethicists on this, as well as with Facebook itself. But you'll have an uphill struggle. Even the example you pick, vehicles, doesn't work, because car manufacturers have spent decades working to mitigate opportunities for the tools they create to cause harm. Now that cars are getting smarter, that harm reduction will include preventing drivers from running the cars into people.

thegrimmest 4y ago
Responsibility is zero sum, or any conversations about it are meaningless. This is quite handily illustrated by your comment actually - where does it end? How much of an "inkling" must people have to carry responsibility? It doesn't sound like a question of fact exactly. The only way to objectively agree about responsibility is to use an actor/agent model, where actors are entirely responsible for their actions, and only actions which directly harm others are considered. Otherwise we're discussing which butterflies are responsible for which hurricanes. I'm happy to be wrong here, but I just don't see an alternative framework that can realistically, objectively, draw actionable boundaries around responsibility for action. This by the way is the model that is used in common law. Facebook being a complex tool strengthens my point. Should providers of complex tools be responsible for every possible use of them? Is it not possible to provide a complex tool "as is" without warranty? Wouldn't constraining tool makers in this way be fundamentally harmful? > online communication systems enable harm... Facebook is morally responsible for that harm Everything can be seen to "enable harm". Facebook being morally responsible is not a statement of fact, it's an opinion. Facebook's actions to mitigate are a) to evade/delay regulatory action, b) to maintain their public image or c) by a small group of activist employees. Only a) and b) align with their fiduciary duty to shareholders.

drc500free 4y ago

Facebook could have chosen to be a completely neutral platform. They could have followed the ISP model, making Facebook another platform like email, RSS, or http. They just had to not make editorial decisions - leave the feed sorted by recency, and only remove illegal material. This is what safe harbor provisions assumed a company would do, allowing platforms who simply pass information between parties to avoid liability for that information. But they wanted to be valued higher, so they explicitly chose to instead step into the editor's role and became responsible for the content on the platform.