4 ms·
> Unfortunately, at our scale, we get false positives on safety measures all the time. At this point, the “at our scale …” argument is such an arrogant excuse
by barbazoo 3y ago
> Unfortunately, at our scale, we get false positives on safety measures all the time.
At this point, the “at our scale …” argument is such an arrogant excuse for doing damage all over the world. If I can’t ensure people are treated fairly, don’t get harassed, etc, maybe it’s not a viable business then. Stop offloading all kinds of externalities onto the public.
- root_axis 3y agoThe "doing damage all over the world" framing makes no sense here. Blocking a link on your own website is not an externality by definition.
- barbazoo 3y agoThink of Myanmar https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/09/myanmar-facebooks-systems-promoted-violence-against-rohingya-meta-owes-reparations-new-report/ https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/09/myanmar-faceb...
- lupire 3y agoSo, Facebook allowing content is bad, and Facebook not allowing content is also bad?
- 3np 3y agoWell, yeah. No entity should be in the centrally authoritative position that Meta alongside a handful of other companies is. Moderation and filtering needs to be decoupled from content hosting and authn/authz. This is a major part making me optimistic about bluesky/atproto.
- rightbyte 3y agoAre you implying that would be some kind of fallacy?
- krainboltgreene 3y agoIn most cases I would agree, but in this case they actually did do reputational damage. There are people asking the site owners why the site is considered insecure.
- root_axis 3y agoI didn't consider that aspect. I admit that does sound frustrating from the perspective of the site owner.
- hyperhopper 3y agoWhat are they supposed to do? Not have any automated filtering? Just shut down when the site gets too big. I'm not a fan of these privately owned social media platforms with no oversight, fairness, or recourse for the public, but people want corporate social media and I'm not sure what these giants are supposed to do or what people even want here.
- tomrod 3y ago> What are they supposed to do? Not have any automated filtering? Just shut down when the site gets too big[?] Maybe? It's not that crazy of an idea that if you can't serve your clients that you are put out of business?
- wbl 3y agoBut they do serve their clients. We don't shut down hospitals because one doctor misses a diagnosis.
- tjpnz 3y agoThe hospital is serving a public good.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago> hospital is serving a public good Given hospitals are frequently privately owned, one could argue Facebook provides a public service in running a social media platform. Discriminating models based on public goodness is simply command-economy picking of winners and losers based on politicians’ limited knowledge and preferences.
- janalsncm 3y agoOne doctor missing a diagnosis doesn’t indicate a systemic issue with the hospital. A hospital which drove teenage girls into depression and suicide via an addictive product would rightfully be shut down.
- 3y ago
- jahewson 3y agoThis piece of “journalism” isn’t fair either though. Should we shut down CNN too?
- lupire 3y agoHow many people would follow links to that website if Facebook didn't exist? Fewer than of Facebook existed as accidentally banned them for one day.
- piva00 3y agoWe can't know since history has no ifs and we have no idea what else could have been in place of Facebook.
- jbverschoor 3y agoAt that scale, they have the resources to deal with it.
- mcswell 3y agoCan you say "clueless"? I didn't think so. What you're saying is that if something isn't perfect, it shouldn't exist at all. And guess what: Nothing is perfect.