5 ms·

Pretty sure Facebook, Twitter and TikTok have all already been involved in more than one first meeting between rape and homicide victims and the wrongdoers, why

Pretty sure Facebook, Twitter and TikTok have all already been involved in more than one first meeting between rape and homicide victims and the wrongdoers, why haven't they been closed? The lighthearted guess is that is because they fight against such evils taking a lot of preventive measures, the cynic in me and what I believe more likely is that they are seen as "too big too fail", like some bizarre form of small governments.

alephnerd 3y ago
> why haven't they been closed Because they try to mitigate CSAM with moderation. Moderation is not censorship despite what some HN big brains might think
- ForkMeOnTinder 3y ago
  This comment seems to imply Omegle had no moderation, and that is false. https://www.omegle.com/ https://www.omegle.com/ > I believe in a responsibility to be a “good Samaritan”, and to implement reasonable measures to fight crime and other misuse. That is exactly what Omegle did. In addition to the basic safety feature of anonymity, there was a great deal of moderation behind the scenes, including state-of-the-art AI operating in concert with a wonderful team of human moderators. Omegle punched above its weight in content moderation, and I’m proud of what we accomplished. > Omegle’s moderation even had a positive impact beyond the site. Omegle worked with law enforcement agencies, and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, to help put evildoers in prison where they belong. There are “people” rotting behind bars right now thanks in part to evidence that Omegle proactively collected against them, and tipped the authorities off to. -- The real reason, of course, is that Facebook can afford an army of lawyers, but Omegle can't.
  - alephnerd 3y ago
    Not at the bare minimum needed as a number of Omegle users have mentioned on HN.
    - mattigames 3y ago
      But at least you agree that is because big companies have enough money to buy enough moderation correct? So in the best case scenario is jut another part of society that small companies are not allowed to participate if they are not rich enough.
      - dragonwriter 3y ago
        > So in the best case scenario is jut another part of society that small companies are not allowed to participate if they are not rich enough. Small companies can participate, as long as their moderation resources are proportionate to their scale. Yes, if they aren't, you are going to have more liability problems, just like if you operate a theme park with inadequate maintenance staff to prevent the rides from flying apart and killing guests.
        mikeyouse 3y ago
        That feels like a good analogy -- we do have different standards for small carnivals than we do for large amusement parks, and accidents do happen at both, but you'd never be allowed to operate a small carnival with dangerous rides and absolutely no maintenance by claiming it was too expensive.
        mindslight 3y ago
        It's a terrible analogy, as carnivals put themselves out there as places that parents can bring kids to enjoy themselves. In general websites are not representing themselves as places to drop off your kids. A better analogy involves things that are generally intended for adult purposes, as the Internet is. You certainly can operate a business selling construction tools, and generally not be sued when someone lets their kid use one and the kid gets injured. Even if you have knowledge that some customers will buy tools for use by their under age kids, or that they will leave tools accessible to kids, while you're merely assuming that they're supplying appropriate supervision and control. The fundamental problem with this liability argument that has been put forth is it's based on responsibility laundering. Kids can't judge or consent, yet the argument quietly asserts it's reasonable for their caretakers to be absent in supplying appropriate judgement and supervision as they're interacting with the larger world. The resulting conclusion is that it is everyone else's responsibility to only ever act in ways that will protect those unrestrained kids. The direct implication is that everything accessible on the Internet must be made safe for kids, which is directly opposed to having free and open communications for adults.
LZ_Khan 3y ago
Legal fees? It's probably not a crime if something illegal happens over your platform, but resolving it in court is extremely costly.

alephnerd 3y ago

> why haven't they been closed Because they try to mitigate CSAM with moderation. Moderation is not censorship despite what some HN big brains might think

ForkMeOnTinder 3y ago
This comment seems to imply Omegle had no moderation, and that is false. https://www.omegle.com/ https://www.omegle.com/ > I believe in a responsibility to be a “good Samaritan”, and to implement reasonable measures to fight crime and other misuse. That is exactly what Omegle did. In addition to the basic safety feature of anonymity, there was a great deal of moderation behind the scenes, including state-of-the-art AI operating in concert with a wonderful team of human moderators. Omegle punched above its weight in content moderation, and I’m proud of what we accomplished. > Omegle’s moderation even had a positive impact beyond the site. Omegle worked with law enforcement agencies, and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, to help put evildoers in prison where they belong. There are “people” rotting behind bars right now thanks in part to evidence that Omegle proactively collected against them, and tipped the authorities off to. -- The real reason, of course, is that Facebook can afford an army of lawyers, but Omegle can't.
- alephnerd 3y ago
  Not at the bare minimum needed as a number of Omegle users have mentioned on HN.
  - mattigames 3y ago
    But at least you agree that is because big companies have enough money to buy enough moderation correct? So in the best case scenario is jut another part of society that small companies are not allowed to participate if they are not rich enough.
    - dragonwriter 3y ago
      > So in the best case scenario is jut another part of society that small companies are not allowed to participate if they are not rich enough. Small companies can participate, as long as their moderation resources are proportionate to their scale. Yes, if they aren't, you are going to have more liability problems, just like if you operate a theme park with inadequate maintenance staff to prevent the rides from flying apart and killing guests.
      - mikeyouse 3y ago
        That feels like a good analogy -- we do have different standards for small carnivals than we do for large amusement parks, and accidents do happen at both, but you'd never be allowed to operate a small carnival with dangerous rides and absolutely no maintenance by claiming it was too expensive.
        mindslight 3y ago
        It's a terrible analogy, as carnivals put themselves out there as places that parents can bring kids to enjoy themselves. In general websites are not representing themselves as places to drop off your kids. A better analogy involves things that are generally intended for adult purposes, as the Internet is. You certainly can operate a business selling construction tools, and generally not be sued when someone lets their kid use one and the kid gets injured. Even if you have knowledge that some customers will buy tools for use by their under age kids, or that they will leave tools accessible to kids, while you're merely assuming that they're supplying appropriate supervision and control. The fundamental problem with this liability argument that has been put forth is it's based on responsibility laundering. Kids can't judge or consent, yet the argument quietly asserts it's reasonable for their caretakers to be absent in supplying appropriate judgement and supervision as they're interacting with the larger world. The resulting conclusion is that it is everyone else's responsibility to only ever act in ways that will protect those unrestrained kids. The direct implication is that everything accessible on the Internet must be made safe for kids, which is directly opposed to having free and open communications for adults.

LZ_Khan 3y ago

Legal fees? It's probably not a crime if something illegal happens over your platform, but resolving it in court is extremely costly.