3 ms·

> Don't we want companies like Meta to be responsible for misinformation? I don't particularly. I don't think it's their job to have that power.

rolandog 2y ago
I respectfully disagree... They already exercise some censorship that is mostly biased towards the interests of the company (e.g. instances of war crimes being censored on Meta platforms). Holding them accountable would make them beholden to the truth (and, partially to us)... Not to whomever they sell our private data to. I think this is crucial distinction which may help reduce politization.
- robertlagrant 2y ago
  > Holding them accountable would make them beholden to the truth I don't understand how this would work. Who determines what's true?
  - rolandog 2y ago
    At the very least, you could try differentiating between opinions and facts... And facts could be verified via knowledge graphs. It'd have to be open-source and reproducibility should be a core value (so we can start healing some of the scientific fields' reproducibility crises). [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_graph https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_graph
swatcoder 2y ago
If I had precise control over what feeds I see, I'd agree with you. But they insert ads and content I've never subscribed to, with no way to prevent either. They also selectively suppress content that I have subscribed to. That doesn't sound like a neutral conveyance of information. In fact, it sounds like they're already exercising the power you'd prefer they not have, according to private algorithms and policies that offer none of transparency or accountability that comes with public regulation. Whatever you'd prefer, it's already disappearing from the rear view mirror. Facebook 2024 is not Facebook 2008, nor are any of its peers.
- JAlexoid 2y ago
  > they're already exercising the power you'd prefer they not have Maybe you would prefer they wouldn't have it, but I prefer that private companies run their moderation as they see fit for the market.
maxerickson 2y ago
Can they classify gore so that I can ask them not show it, or is that overstepping their role? If they can do that, how do you draw other lines? And then if your answer is no, why do you think you should be able to dictate a rule that is so harmful to their business?
- robertlagrant 2y ago
  Sorry, what is the rule I think they should dictate?
  - maxerickson 2y ago
    I asked you if they should be allowed to do something like classify gore. If your answer is no, then you are dictating that they can't do something beneficial to their business.

rolandog 2y ago

I respectfully disagree... They already exercise some censorship that is mostly biased towards the interests of the company (e.g. instances of war crimes being censored on Meta platforms). Holding them accountable would make them beholden to the truth (and, partially to us)... Not to whomever they sell our private data to. I think this is crucial distinction which may help reduce politization.

robertlagrant 2y ago
> Holding them accountable would make them beholden to the truth I don't understand how this would work. Who determines what's true?
- rolandog 2y ago
  At the very least, you could try differentiating between opinions and facts... And facts could be verified via knowledge graphs. It'd have to be open-source and reproducibility should be a core value (so we can start healing some of the scientific fields' reproducibility crises). [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_graph https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_graph

swatcoder 2y ago

If I had precise control over what feeds I see, I'd agree with you. But they insert ads and content I've never subscribed to, with no way to prevent either. They also selectively suppress content that I have subscribed to. That doesn't sound like a neutral conveyance of information. In fact, it sounds like they're already exercising the power you'd prefer they not have, according to private algorithms and policies that offer none of transparency or accountability that comes with public regulation. Whatever you'd prefer, it's already disappearing from the rear view mirror. Facebook 2024 is not Facebook 2008, nor are any of its peers.

JAlexoid 2y ago
> they're already exercising the power you'd prefer they not have Maybe you would prefer they wouldn't have it, but I prefer that private companies run their moderation as they see fit for the market.

maxerickson 2y ago

Can they classify gore so that I can ask them not show it, or is that overstepping their role? If they can do that, how do you draw other lines? And then if your answer is no, why do you think you should be able to dictate a rule that is so harmful to their business?

robertlagrant 2y ago
Sorry, what is the rule I think they should dictate?
- maxerickson 2y ago
  I asked you if they should be allowed to do something like classify gore. If your answer is no, then you are dictating that they can't do something beneficial to their business.