3 ms·

You mean virtue signalling one thing, whilst actively and simultaneously doing the opposite by supporting known malicious platforms?

I_Am_Nous 3y ago
Yep, capitalism as usual, working as intended.
- shark_laser 3y ago
  It is possible to be capitalist, and not two faced and hypocritical.
  - I_Am_Nous 3y ago
    That's true, but it's dependent on people maintaining personal ethics. Unfortunately the incentives are aligned with not maintaining ethics so you can make more money. I've had this discussion with a coworker plenty of times. His argument is regulation makes capitalism safer and the best option we have, while I argue that "after the fact" regulation only prevents someone from repeating someone else's unethical strategy and most likely the initial, unethical party will not really be punished for doing what wasn't illegal at the time. Maybe they get fined, but nowhere near the revenue they generated with the unethical strategy.
edmundsauto 3y ago
Not exactly - perhaps if you only look at the public statements made by the CEOs. If you look at how Meta spends money, they spend billions per year in moderation and brand-safety technology and people and processes. Meanwhile, in the Twitter -> X transformation, these roles were all but eliminated. And yes, one CEO says "it is important we get this right" and the other one says "fuck it all", then it's more "signaling priorities" than "virtue signaling".
- shark_laser 3y ago
  Billions per year in moderation, and they're still being sued for distributing child abuse material? Also, you forgot the bit about how much Meta spends on lawyers suing federal agencies so they can use data they scraped from their underage users: https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/story/2023-11-30/facebook-parent-meta-sues-ftc-claiming-unconstitutional-authority-in-child-privacy-case https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/story/2023-11-30...
  - imtringued 3y ago
    The problem is fundamental to any jpeg uploading website. For the computer it is just a bunch of numbers. You need a human brain or something imitating the brain for the computer to understand the meaning of the arrangement of numbers.
    - shark_laser 3y ago
      This is what Meta's human brains are doing with child abuse material: https://www.theverge.com/2022/3/31/23005576/facebook-content-moderators-child-sexual-abuse-material-csam-policy https://www.theverge.com/2022/3/31/23005576/facebook-content... And this is what they're doing with data they illegally harvested from children: https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/story/2023-11-30/facebook-parent-meta-sues-ftc-claiming-unconstitutional-authority-in-child-privacy-case https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/story/2023-11-30... (and there are many more examples)
  - edmundsauto 3y ago
    Yes, their moderation is not 100% and companies can be sued for any reason. AFAICT there has not been a finding in these lawsuits, it’s probably not a smart idea to use the existence of a lawsuit as evidence that something nefarious has happened. And also yes, I am using evidence of how they spend their money as an indication of their intent. It’s the embodiment of putting their money where their mouth is.

I_Am_Nous 3y ago

Yep, capitalism as usual, working as intended.

shark_laser 3y ago
It is possible to be capitalist, and not two faced and hypocritical.
- I_Am_Nous 3y ago
  That's true, but it's dependent on people maintaining personal ethics. Unfortunately the incentives are aligned with not maintaining ethics so you can make more money. I've had this discussion with a coworker plenty of times. His argument is regulation makes capitalism safer and the best option we have, while I argue that "after the fact" regulation only prevents someone from repeating someone else's unethical strategy and most likely the initial, unethical party will not really be punished for doing what wasn't illegal at the time. Maybe they get fined, but nowhere near the revenue they generated with the unethical strategy.

edmundsauto 3y ago

Not exactly - perhaps if you only look at the public statements made by the CEOs. If you look at how Meta spends money, they spend billions per year in moderation and brand-safety technology and people and processes. Meanwhile, in the Twitter -> X transformation, these roles were all but eliminated. And yes, one CEO says "it is important we get this right" and the other one says "fuck it all", then it's more "signaling priorities" than "virtue signaling".

shark_laser 3y ago
Billions per year in moderation, and they're still being sued for distributing child abuse material? Also, you forgot the bit about how much Meta spends on lawyers suing federal agencies so they can use data they scraped from their underage users: https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/story/2023-11-30/facebook-parent-meta-sues-ftc-claiming-unconstitutional-authority-in-child-privacy-case https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/story/2023-11-30...
- imtringued 3y ago
  The problem is fundamental to any jpeg uploading website. For the computer it is just a bunch of numbers. You need a human brain or something imitating the brain for the computer to understand the meaning of the arrangement of numbers.
  - shark_laser 3y ago
    This is what Meta's human brains are doing with child abuse material: https://www.theverge.com/2022/3/31/23005576/facebook-content-moderators-child-sexual-abuse-material-csam-policy https://www.theverge.com/2022/3/31/23005576/facebook-content... And this is what they're doing with data they illegally harvested from children: https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/story/2023-11-30/facebook-parent-meta-sues-ftc-claiming-unconstitutional-authority-in-child-privacy-case https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/story/2023-11-30... (and there are many more examples)
- edmundsauto 3y ago
  Yes, their moderation is not 100% and companies can be sued for any reason. AFAICT there has not been a finding in these lawsuits, it’s probably not a smart idea to use the existence of a lawsuit as evidence that something nefarious has happened. And also yes, I am using evidence of how they spend their money as an indication of their intent. It’s the embodiment of putting their money where their mouth is.