6 ms·

> The platforms don't work if they have to police everything. Proper moderation results in an increase in false positives which paints an overzealous image and

> The platforms don't work if they have to police everything. Proper moderation results in an increase in false positives which paints an overzealous image and will draw the ire of users while driving them elsewhere. I'm unequivocally against any sort of drug prohibition, but this argument is pretty silly. You know what other business model doesn't work if we enforce laws mandating anti-drug morality? Drug dealing. If your business model doesn't work without doing unethical things, your business model should not work.

jobs_throwaway 3y ago
Is selling pens and paper unethical? Because drug dealers can use those too. Same for food. I guess we should make grocery stores screen every person to make sure they're not using the food for anything illegal.
- arjunaanand 3y ago
  Sure pen and papers won’t be unethical as much as keyboards they are using to type today. However if they use a shop as a platform to start selling drugs, that shop owner will be held liable by law, just like facebook.
  - mewpmewp2 3y ago
    What about phones? I'm sure they use phones in general, should we also ban phones or listen in on everybody by default to avoid it? The phones allow them to make trades much more effectively. In addition, they probably use their hands, feet, voice, maybe these should be disabled for people since birth.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - moefh 3y ago
      You're comparing apples to oranges. We don't expect phone manufacturers or phone companies to prevent people from using phones to send death threats, but Facebook regularly removes death threats sent via Facebook. The argument being argued here is that it's not viable in practice for Facebook to police every single post, not that it shouldn't do it in principle. Your argument seems to be that Facebook shouldn't police messages at all, like phone companies don't monitor conversations. That's a completely different position that even Facebook wouldn't agree on.
      - mewpmewp2 3y ago
        There was another argument made, which I'm referring to. > "If your business model doesn't work without doing unethical things, your business model should not work." There's plenty of tools and business in real world where preventing the use of those tools for certain unethical acts is unfeasibly complex, impossible, costly or difficult.
        kerkeslager 3y ago
        Sure. Facebook isn't one of those, though.
        moefh 3y ago
        You're ignoring the context in that comment. It was made in reply to "The platforms don't work if they have to police everything". That's what's being discussed; whether it's OK to give a pass to Facebook on some objectionable content because they can't possibly police everything. In other words, it's understood that Facebook will police as much as they can (as they're already doing); one side is arguing that if they can't police everything they shouldn't exist, the other side is arguing that it's good enough that they police whatever is practical. That's why your comparison with phone companies doesn't work: Facebook is already expected to monitor some content, the question is to what degree they should be held accountable.
        mewpmewp2 3y ago
        I don't understand what difference it makes whether they are already monitoring certain part of something or not? The effect is still the same. You could also argue that some phones or comm lines provide a way to monitor or get alerts for certain cases such as terrorism etc, but not all lower level crimes. And governments monitor people in the public, yet they are unable to prevent all crimes of happening. Should governments then not exist at all or the society in general? Should people not exist?
- kerkeslager 3y ago
  This is a disingenuous and overly-glib argument. There are numerous obvious differences: 1. We can enforce the law on Facebook in ways we can't with completely agnostic, low-tech tools like pen and paper. 2. "Drug dealers can use those too" is very different from "Drug dealers are commonly using those too, to deal drugs". Drug dealers surely use pen and paper sometimes. But how often are they using them? And are they using them to advertise and sell drugs, or just using them? (Note this also addresses your food analogy). 3. Facebook inherently collects massive amounts of evidence that pen, paper, and food don't.
  - savanaly 3y ago
    >This is a disingenuous and overly-glib argument It's not that, it's a reductio ad absurdum, a legitimate debate technique.
    - kerkeslager 3y ago
      > (reduction to the absurd) a disproof by showing that the consequences of the proposition are absurd; or a proof of a proposition by showing that its negation leads to a contradiction Banning pens and paper isn't a consequence of forcing Facebook to not allow drug dealing. Or in the contradiction sense, forcing Facebook to not allow drug dealing does not lead to an absurdity of everyone being forced to ban pens and paper. This isn't reductio ad absurdum.
LocalH 3y ago
> If your business model doesn't work without doing unethical things, your business model should not work. Modern capitalism doesn't seem to give two shits about that
- kerkeslager 3y ago
  Having a conscience isn't profitable, and that profit is the only thing that capitalism optimizes for. Sometimes being ethical is profitable, but not always. More fundamentally, sometimes providing any value at all is profitable, but not always.
dmoy 3y ago
> You know what other business model doesn't work if we enforce laws mandating anti-drug morality? Drug dealing. Pedantically, the drug dealing business model definitely still definitely works, even if anti drug laws are enforced. It just gets more expensive, risky, and often has to pick up either organized crime backing (e.g. gangs and liquor in prohibition, or gangs and cocaine/crack/h during the height of the war on drugs) or government backing (not in an IranContra sense, rather lobbying to make your drug legal, so long as the government gets a cut - e.g. liquor or marijuana).
- kerkeslager 3y ago
  > Pedantically, the drug dealing business model definitely still definitely works, even if anti drug laws are enforced. Fair enough, you've got me there. I guess what I meant was that drug dealing business model doesn't work legally.
thfuran 3y ago
>Proper moderation results in an increase in false positives which paints an overzealous image and will draw the ire of users while driving them elsewhere. Isn't a false positive by definition improper moderation, just like a false negative?

jobs_throwaway 3y ago

Is selling pens and paper unethical? Because drug dealers can use those too. Same for food. I guess we should make grocery stores screen every person to make sure they're not using the food for anything illegal.

arjunaanand 3y ago
Sure pen and papers won’t be unethical as much as keyboards they are using to type today. However if they use a shop as a platform to start selling drugs, that shop owner will be held liable by law, just like facebook.
- mewpmewp2 3y ago
  What about phones? I'm sure they use phones in general, should we also ban phones or listen in on everybody by default to avoid it? The phones allow them to make trades much more effectively. In addition, they probably use their hands, feet, voice, maybe these should be disabled for people since birth.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - moefh 3y ago
    You're comparing apples to oranges. We don't expect phone manufacturers or phone companies to prevent people from using phones to send death threats, but Facebook regularly removes death threats sent via Facebook. The argument being argued here is that it's not viable in practice for Facebook to police every single post, not that it shouldn't do it in principle. Your argument seems to be that Facebook shouldn't police messages at all, like phone companies don't monitor conversations. That's a completely different position that even Facebook wouldn't agree on.
    - mewpmewp2 3y ago
      There was another argument made, which I'm referring to. > "If your business model doesn't work without doing unethical things, your business model should not work." There's plenty of tools and business in real world where preventing the use of those tools for certain unethical acts is unfeasibly complex, impossible, costly or difficult.
      - kerkeslager 3y ago
        Sure. Facebook isn't one of those, though.
      - moefh 3y ago
        You're ignoring the context in that comment. It was made in reply to "The platforms don't work if they have to police everything". That's what's being discussed; whether it's OK to give a pass to Facebook on some objectionable content because they can't possibly police everything. In other words, it's understood that Facebook will police as much as they can (as they're already doing); one side is arguing that if they can't police everything they shouldn't exist, the other side is arguing that it's good enough that they police whatever is practical. That's why your comparison with phone companies doesn't work: Facebook is already expected to monitor some content, the question is to what degree they should be held accountable.
        mewpmewp2 3y ago
        I don't understand what difference it makes whether they are already monitoring certain part of something or not? The effect is still the same. You could also argue that some phones or comm lines provide a way to monitor or get alerts for certain cases such as terrorism etc, but not all lower level crimes. And governments monitor people in the public, yet they are unable to prevent all crimes of happening. Should governments then not exist at all or the society in general? Should people not exist?
kerkeslager 3y ago
This is a disingenuous and overly-glib argument. There are numerous obvious differences: 1. We can enforce the law on Facebook in ways we can't with completely agnostic, low-tech tools like pen and paper. 2. "Drug dealers can use those too" is very different from "Drug dealers are commonly using those too, to deal drugs". Drug dealers surely use pen and paper sometimes. But how often are they using them? And are they using them to advertise and sell drugs, or just using them? (Note this also addresses your food analogy). 3. Facebook inherently collects massive amounts of evidence that pen, paper, and food don't.
- savanaly 3y ago
  >This is a disingenuous and overly-glib argument It's not that, it's a reductio ad absurdum, a legitimate debate technique.
  - kerkeslager 3y ago
    > (reduction to the absurd) a disproof by showing that the consequences of the proposition are absurd; or a proof of a proposition by showing that its negation leads to a contradiction Banning pens and paper isn't a consequence of forcing Facebook to not allow drug dealing. Or in the contradiction sense, forcing Facebook to not allow drug dealing does not lead to an absurdity of everyone being forced to ban pens and paper. This isn't reductio ad absurdum.

LocalH 3y ago

> If your business model doesn't work without doing unethical things, your business model should not work. Modern capitalism doesn't seem to give two shits about that

kerkeslager 3y ago
Having a conscience isn't profitable, and that profit is the only thing that capitalism optimizes for. Sometimes being ethical is profitable, but not always. More fundamentally, sometimes providing any value at all is profitable, but not always.

dmoy 3y ago

> You know what other business model doesn't work if we enforce laws mandating anti-drug morality? Drug dealing. Pedantically, the drug dealing business model definitely still definitely works, even if anti drug laws are enforced. It just gets more expensive, risky, and often has to pick up either organized crime backing (e.g. gangs and liquor in prohibition, or gangs and cocaine/crack/h during the height of the war on drugs) or government backing (not in an IranContra sense, rather lobbying to make your drug legal, so long as the government gets a cut - e.g. liquor or marijuana).

kerkeslager 3y ago
> Pedantically, the drug dealing business model definitely still definitely works, even if anti drug laws are enforced. Fair enough, you've got me there. I guess what I meant was that drug dealing business model doesn't work legally.

thfuran 3y ago

>Proper moderation results in an increase in false positives which paints an overzealous image and will draw the ire of users while driving them elsewhere. Isn't a false positive by definition improper moderation, just like a false negative?