3 ms·

I see zereo issue with what Facebook is doing. They are indeed "treating users equally." To not have special measures in place protecting accounts that are orde

I see zereo issue with what Facebook is doing. They are indeed "treating users equally." To not have special measures in place protecting accounts that are orders of magnitude more likely to receive false reports would be unequal treatment, and would result in celebrities' accounts being very frequently taken down. "Unequal treatment" would mean: these users are not subject to our policies. That's not the case here. XCheck just turns off the "we receive 100 reports, an algo shuts that account down" phenomenon. Humans review those cases manually, and the account can still be suspended or banned. How in the world could that be contentious?

smolder 4y ago
Your stance, as described, doesn't make any sense. You're being willfully obtuse here. Equal treatment would mean that users are treated the same by the company. They are not, in the same situation.
- aozgaa 4y ago
  Imagine the following three enforcement schemes for taking down a post due to reports: * if your post gets reported 10 times, it gets taken down * if your post gets reported (# of followers / 10) times, it gets taken down * if your post gets reported (# of followers * 100) times, it gets taken down Which of these are fair in your opinion? For an account with a huge # of followers, the last one effectively means their posts can't be taken down. It seems a system like XCheck is a step function where at a certain point, you get exempt from certain checks altogether. The "equality" here could refer to each account's potential to go through the vetting that would give them exempt status. ============== Maybe this deserves a separate response, but another way to think of this is to compare it to income taxes. There are different income brackets that affect your marginal tax rate in the US. Is it equal for everyone to pay the same dollar amount in income taxes? The same rate? A progressive rate? Are people treated equally under the law in all these cases? In none of them?
  - smolder 4y ago
    > Which of these are fair in your opinion? Who said anything about fair? The only one that is "equal treatment" is the one where 10 reports takes them down. It's shitty policy, but that's a different question isn't it? Number of followers playing a role is where treatment stops being equal. I'm not arguing what's the right way to handle this, I'm just contradicting rhetoric aiming to justify their policy by fallacious argument. Edited to add: I don't think tax code is meant to or treats people equally, even though they're all subject to the same rules. The rules explicitly divide taxpayers into categories with different treatment.
  - NikolaNovak 4y ago
    I like that they've started teaching difference between "fair" and "equal" in kindergarten now in Canada. This is not meant as a slight, just a generational gap - I myself was not taught that as a kid and it took me way too long to realize that "fair treatment" and "equal treatment" can be wildly different things. Xcheck is, by definition, at its very core, not "equal treatment". Equal treatment is easy and uncontroversial to define. It may or may not be "fair treatment". That is always subjective and depends on goals and objectives and frameworks. Something like Xcheck may or may not be necessary. It's interesting to read about problem it's trying to solve and discuss whether and how much it succeeds and at what price and what limitations. What Xcheck does not get to do, however, is present / defend itself as "equal treatment",and in any meaningful discussion we should not mix and match or treat those as synonyms - that's confusing and unproductive at best, deceptive at worst.
NikolaNovak 4y ago
What they are doing may or may not be necessary and practical. It may or may not be fair or right. What it empathically is not, by definition, is "equal treatment". It's existence is epitome of unequal treatment.
- sbarre 4y ago
  That's why we don't talk about "equal treatment" in diversity and inclusion, we talk about "equitable treatment". Same but different here. "Equality" is an inherently unfair concept because not all humans come into the system with equal footing, or in equal conditions. And so to simply, and blindly, treat everyone identically - what you mean to say is "equal" here - would be a bad approach. Pedantically speaking, you can certainly argue that "equal" is not grammatically correct, but I think everyone else understands what's being said.
  - NikolaNovak 4y ago
    Thanks for your reply. The first few paragraphs are educational and appreciated. We may disagree on the last one - I find "everybody understands..." assumptions can range from mostly happen to be true to tragically incorrect to manipulatively deceptive. Based on other discussions in this thread, I'm not alone. The fact that you indicate diversity and inclusion has moved away from equal treatment phrase, that Equal vs Fair is now being taught as basic differentiation just like Pretend vs Real, and Opinion vs Fact in school, also I believe supports my claim these are meaningfully, substantially, importantly different concepts. Again, I think they get confused enough, intentionally or unintentionally, that "everybody understands" is just too dangerous of an approach, even if well meant.

smolder 4y ago

Your stance, as described, doesn't make any sense. You're being willfully obtuse here. Equal treatment would mean that users are treated the same by the company. They are not, in the same situation.

aozgaa 4y ago
Imagine the following three enforcement schemes for taking down a post due to reports: * if your post gets reported 10 times, it gets taken down * if your post gets reported (# of followers / 10) times, it gets taken down * if your post gets reported (# of followers * 100) times, it gets taken down Which of these are fair in your opinion? For an account with a huge # of followers, the last one effectively means their posts can't be taken down. It seems a system like XCheck is a step function where at a certain point, you get exempt from certain checks altogether. The "equality" here could refer to each account's potential to go through the vetting that would give them exempt status. ============== Maybe this deserves a separate response, but another way to think of this is to compare it to income taxes. There are different income brackets that affect your marginal tax rate in the US. Is it equal for everyone to pay the same dollar amount in income taxes? The same rate? A progressive rate? Are people treated equally under the law in all these cases? In none of them?
- smolder 4y ago
  > Which of these are fair in your opinion? Who said anything about fair? The only one that is "equal treatment" is the one where 10 reports takes them down. It's shitty policy, but that's a different question isn't it? Number of followers playing a role is where treatment stops being equal. I'm not arguing what's the right way to handle this, I'm just contradicting rhetoric aiming to justify their policy by fallacious argument. Edited to add: I don't think tax code is meant to or treats people equally, even though they're all subject to the same rules. The rules explicitly divide taxpayers into categories with different treatment.
- NikolaNovak 4y ago
  I like that they've started teaching difference between "fair" and "equal" in kindergarten now in Canada. This is not meant as a slight, just a generational gap - I myself was not taught that as a kid and it took me way too long to realize that "fair treatment" and "equal treatment" can be wildly different things. Xcheck is, by definition, at its very core, not "equal treatment". Equal treatment is easy and uncontroversial to define. It may or may not be "fair treatment". That is always subjective and depends on goals and objectives and frameworks. Something like Xcheck may or may not be necessary. It's interesting to read about problem it's trying to solve and discuss whether and how much it succeeds and at what price and what limitations. What Xcheck does not get to do, however, is present / defend itself as "equal treatment",and in any meaningful discussion we should not mix and match or treat those as synonyms - that's confusing and unproductive at best, deceptive at worst.

NikolaNovak 4y ago

What they are doing may or may not be necessary and practical. It may or may not be fair or right. What it empathically is not, by definition, is "equal treatment". It's existence is epitome of unequal treatment.

sbarre 4y ago
That's why we don't talk about "equal treatment" in diversity and inclusion, we talk about "equitable treatment". Same but different here. "Equality" is an inherently unfair concept because not all humans come into the system with equal footing, or in equal conditions. And so to simply, and blindly, treat everyone identically - what you mean to say is "equal" here - would be a bad approach. Pedantically speaking, you can certainly argue that "equal" is not grammatically correct, but I think everyone else understands what's being said.
- NikolaNovak 4y ago
  Thanks for your reply. The first few paragraphs are educational and appreciated. We may disagree on the last one - I find "everybody understands..." assumptions can range from mostly happen to be true to tragically incorrect to manipulatively deceptive. Based on other discussions in this thread, I'm not alone. The fact that you indicate diversity and inclusion has moved away from equal treatment phrase, that Equal vs Fair is now being taught as basic differentiation just like Pretend vs Real, and Opinion vs Fact in school, also I believe supports my claim these are meaningfully, substantially, importantly different concepts. Again, I think they get confused enough, intentionally or unintentionally, that "everybody understands" is just too dangerous of an approach, even if well meant.