3 ms·

What 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

What 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 2y 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 2y ago
  But they do serve their clients. We don't shut down hospitals because one doctor misses a diagnosis.
  - tjpnz 2y ago
    The hospital is serving a public good.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y 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 2y ago
    One 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.
- exe34 2y ago
  Well let the magic hand of the market decide! I'm sure people will be flocking out any time now and advertising revenue will dry up!
barbazoo 2y ago
They’re supposed to not do things like 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...
lokar 2y ago
The best (but not necessarily good) answer I see is that ad supported social media can’t meet the minimum bar for effective moderation and be profitable, then it should be shut down as a nuisance. Not all business models have a right to exist. Perhaps if free/ad was not workable we could see subscription services with better moderation. If not (people won’t pay), then it’s not actually worth that much to users so it’s fine to let it die.
- tvaughan 2y ago
  Well said. I would add another option, they should be public utilities
aleph_minus_one 2y ago
> What are they supposed to do? Not have any automated filtering? Just give the user a warning that Facebook sees some likelihood that the site is a phishing site, and let the user decide by himself whether he wants to follow the link or not.
jbverschoor 2y ago
What sounds a over man show do with no revenue?
janalsncm 2y ago
If we presuppose that platforms should be able to scale past their ability to not cause harm or even comply with the law, this defense makes sense. It’s not feasible for a company with a billion users to avoid harming people. This is the philosophy we’ve been living under for at least the last 20 years. If we instead say that people are more important than a corporation’s right to scale, then a single large-scale violation would have been the end of Facebook and have criminal consequences for the leadership of the company. The scale of the act should make you more culpable, not less.
tata19999 2y ago
[flagged]

tomrod 2y 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 2y ago
But they do serve their clients. We don't shut down hospitals because one doctor misses a diagnosis.
- tjpnz 2y ago
  The hospital is serving a public good.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y 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 2y ago
  One 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.
exe34 2y ago
Well let the magic hand of the market decide! I'm sure people will be flocking out any time now and advertising revenue will dry up!

barbazoo 2y ago

They’re supposed to not do things like 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...

lokar 2y ago

The best (but not necessarily good) answer I see is that ad supported social media can’t meet the minimum bar for effective moderation and be profitable, then it should be shut down as a nuisance. Not all business models have a right to exist. Perhaps if free/ad was not workable we could see subscription services with better moderation. If not (people won’t pay), then it’s not actually worth that much to users so it’s fine to let it die.

tvaughan 2y ago
Well said. I would add another option, they should be public utilities

aleph_minus_one 2y ago

> What are they supposed to do? Not have any automated filtering? Just give the user a warning that Facebook sees some likelihood that the site is a phishing site, and let the user decide by himself whether he wants to follow the link or not.

jbverschoor 2y ago

What sounds a over man show do with no revenue?

janalsncm 2y ago

If we presuppose that platforms should be able to scale past their ability to not cause harm or even comply with the law, this defense makes sense. It’s not feasible for a company with a billion users to avoid harming people. This is the philosophy we’ve been living under for at least the last 20 years. If we instead say that people are more important than a corporation’s right to scale, then a single large-scale violation would have been the end of Facebook and have criminal consequences for the leadership of the company. The scale of the act should make you more culpable, not less.

tata19999 2y ago

[flagged]