5 ms·

> Not being able to scale is YOUR problem, not MINE. Following your reasoning, anything that could possibly harm children should be banned. Cars sometimes kill

> Not being able to scale is YOUR problem, not MINE. Following your reasoning, anything that could possibly harm children should be banned. Cars sometimes kill children, shall we ban them too? Now, suppose we do ban Meta. Where should we stop? should we ban open decentralized social media too? You may not like social media, but a lot of people use them without any particular issues.

colpabar 3y ago
That's not following their reasoning at all, it's a strawman. His point was that a business shouldn't be able to claim that doing something we want/require them to do is too hard and just not do it, which is what they currently do with content moderation.
- yodsanklai 3y ago
  How do you know they're not doing it and that it's unreasonable to ask more considering the difficulty of the task? His point is that there's no excuse for not doing it, even if the task is impossible. We don't ask the impossible to car manufacturers, why should it be different with Meta? who's to decide?
  - colpabar 3y ago
    It is for the society in which these companies operate and profit to decide, not the companies themselves. And if it is indeed “too difficult”, which we all know just means it will hurt profits to a degree that is unacceptable to shareholders, too bad, they can either make less money or shut it down. If a cop can kill a man in broad daylight for selling loose cigarettes, we should be able to kill a company like meta for breaking the law.
  - Capricorn2481 3y ago
    Because it's well documented that they're not doing it. They have had several whistleblowers around content moderation already. The whole of Africa's content moderation was basically being handled by a mid level employee.
surgical_fire 3y ago
> Now, suppose we do ban Meta. Where should we stop? Google.
_Algernon_ 3y ago
Using a car without a license is in fact banned, because this minimizes harm to kids (and non-kids).
- mcpackieh 3y ago
  > Using a car without a license is in fact banned On public roads, but not otherwise.
shrimpx 3y ago
> Cars sometimes kill children, shall we ban them too? Yeah if they sold cars with 0-star zero safety rating claiming that it's just too hard to do anything about making cars safer when you sell cars at scale. If Meta was a low-margin business, we might buy their argument that "it's just too hard".
- timeagain 3y ago
  We also don’t allow children to drive cars, so the analogy is DOA
dfxm12 3y ago
I think the lawsuit in the article draws a reasonable, if not conservative, line at knowingly exploiting vulnerable people to boost profits, which a whistleblower is saying Meta is doing. It's not just that the product is harming people, but that it is going out of its way to harm people. Is open decentralized social media doing this? There are restrictions around advertising for cigarettes, I think for the same reason. To take it a step further in discussing around cars, I think companies who sell certain sized trucks are aware of the blind spots that make it hard to see people in certain spots. Reasonably, these trucks should be banned, or at least more conservatively, no new trucks with this flaw should be built or sold or require a commercial license.
- CodeSgt 3y ago
  > knowingly > exploitable > vulnerable None of these are cut and dry. How vulnerable does someone have to be before you can exploit them? How harmful does the behavior have to be before it’s exploitation? What is “knowingly” in an organization? How should events be handled if it’s a single engineer operating in the shadows vs a board decision? etc etc etc The answers to these question may seem obvious to you, and someone else nay have a completely different answer that seems equally obvious to them.
  - dfxm12 3y ago
    It's not about any of our opinions. As the article says, there is a whistleblower from Meta saying that this is documented. The lawsuit is what's going to sort it out.
    - CodeSgt 3y ago
      That just means it’s about the opinion of the government, which isn’t much better in my opinion (and is arguably worse).
      - chowells 3y ago
        No, it means it's the opinion of the jury. Their job is to determine fact.
superb_dev 3y ago
Cars aren't a great example, they're a huge problem and we'd be better off if we weren't all dependent on having a car
rangerelf 3y ago
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE explain how that's in any remote way equivalent?? "hurr durr lets ban cars now". PLEASE. Unlike social media, to drive a car you need a license, you need insurance, and if you run over a kid you most likely will go to prison. Or maybe you weren't driving your car, but it was unsecured, or had a mechanical malfunction. You are still responsible and you will in one way or another have to pay. But, you can create ads on social media targeting minors with toxic messaging, and nobody bats a damn eye. It's about time that online commercial endeavors, like ad networks, get reigned in and have rules applied to them, same as for other activities.
- yodsanklai 3y ago
  > PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE explain how that's in any remote way equivalent?? let's ban meta because they can't prevent that some kid somewhere is gonna be able to create an account (and may see really horrible things there) let's ban car because some kids are going to get run over because car manufacturers can't prevent it. You're welcome
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
xboxnolifes 3y ago
We do ban cars. We have safety ratings and regulations that they have to meet, otherwise they are banned from sales. We also have driving tests and age requirements for using them. Since we still have cars post regulation, maybe we would still have social media as well.
charonn0 3y ago
Meta is not being banned, though.
edgyquant 3y ago
We actually do restrict children from driving cars. It’s pretty common in most countries
PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
The poster didn't say ban, this is a huge strawman. The poster said laying down requirements and them being unable to scale whilst adhering to those requirements is not an argument for removing said requirements. Our priority is the safety and health of society, if the only way they can scale is to put people at risk then maybe as a society we don't WANT them to scale.

colpabar 3y ago

That's not following their reasoning at all, it's a strawman. His point was that a business shouldn't be able to claim that doing something we want/require them to do is too hard and just not do it, which is what they currently do with content moderation.

yodsanklai 3y ago
How do you know they're not doing it and that it's unreasonable to ask more considering the difficulty of the task? His point is that there's no excuse for not doing it, even if the task is impossible. We don't ask the impossible to car manufacturers, why should it be different with Meta? who's to decide?
- colpabar 3y ago
  It is for the society in which these companies operate and profit to decide, not the companies themselves. And if it is indeed “too difficult”, which we all know just means it will hurt profits to a degree that is unacceptable to shareholders, too bad, they can either make less money or shut it down. If a cop can kill a man in broad daylight for selling loose cigarettes, we should be able to kill a company like meta for breaking the law.
- Capricorn2481 3y ago
  Because it's well documented that they're not doing it. They have had several whistleblowers around content moderation already. The whole of Africa's content moderation was basically being handled by a mid level employee.

surgical_fire 3y ago

> Now, suppose we do ban Meta. Where should we stop? Google.

_Algernon_ 3y ago

Using a car without a license is in fact banned, because this minimizes harm to kids (and non-kids).

mcpackieh 3y ago
> Using a car without a license is in fact banned On public roads, but not otherwise.

shrimpx 3y ago

> Cars sometimes kill children, shall we ban them too? Yeah if they sold cars with 0-star zero safety rating claiming that it's just too hard to do anything about making cars safer when you sell cars at scale. If Meta was a low-margin business, we might buy their argument that "it's just too hard".

timeagain 3y ago
We also don’t allow children to drive cars, so the analogy is DOA

dfxm12 3y ago

I think the lawsuit in the article draws a reasonable, if not conservative, line at knowingly exploiting vulnerable people to boost profits, which a whistleblower is saying Meta is doing. It's not just that the product is harming people, but that it is going out of its way to harm people. Is open decentralized social media doing this? There are restrictions around advertising for cigarettes, I think for the same reason. To take it a step further in discussing around cars, I think companies who sell certain sized trucks are aware of the blind spots that make it hard to see people in certain spots. Reasonably, these trucks should be banned, or at least more conservatively, no new trucks with this flaw should be built or sold or require a commercial license.

CodeSgt 3y ago
> knowingly > exploitable > vulnerable None of these are cut and dry. How vulnerable does someone have to be before you can exploit them? How harmful does the behavior have to be before it’s exploitation? What is “knowingly” in an organization? How should events be handled if it’s a single engineer operating in the shadows vs a board decision? etc etc etc The answers to these question may seem obvious to you, and someone else nay have a completely different answer that seems equally obvious to them.
- dfxm12 3y ago
  It's not about any of our opinions. As the article says, there is a whistleblower from Meta saying that this is documented. The lawsuit is what's going to sort it out.
  - CodeSgt 3y ago
    That just means it’s about the opinion of the government, which isn’t much better in my opinion (and is arguably worse).
    - chowells 3y ago
      No, it means it's the opinion of the jury. Their job is to determine fact.

superb_dev 3y ago

Cars aren't a great example, they're a huge problem and we'd be better off if we weren't all dependent on having a car

rangerelf 3y ago

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE explain how that's in any remote way equivalent?? "hurr durr lets ban cars now". PLEASE. Unlike social media, to drive a car you need a license, you need insurance, and if you run over a kid you most likely will go to prison. Or maybe you weren't driving your car, but it was unsecured, or had a mechanical malfunction. You are still responsible and you will in one way or another have to pay. But, you can create ads on social media targeting minors with toxic messaging, and nobody bats a damn eye. It's about time that online commercial endeavors, like ad networks, get reigned in and have rules applied to them, same as for other activities.

yodsanklai 3y ago
> PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE explain how that's in any remote way equivalent?? let's ban meta because they can't prevent that some kid somewhere is gonna be able to create an account (and may see really horrible things there) let's ban car because some kids are going to get run over because car manufacturers can't prevent it. You're welcome

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

xboxnolifes 3y ago

We do ban cars. We have safety ratings and regulations that they have to meet, otherwise they are banned from sales. We also have driving tests and age requirements for using them. Since we still have cars post regulation, maybe we would still have social media as well.

charonn0 3y ago

Meta is not being banned, though.

edgyquant 3y ago

We actually do restrict children from driving cars. It’s pretty common in most countries

PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago

The poster didn't say ban, this is a huge strawman. The poster said laying down requirements and them being unable to scale whilst adhering to those requirements is not an argument for removing said requirements. Our priority is the safety and health of society, if the only way they can scale is to put people at risk then maybe as a society we don't WANT them to scale.