7 ms·

I don't understand how those statements are contradictory.

by mgaunard 8mo ago

ceejayoz 8mo ago
If I said "we don't allow murder", but gave everyone 17 free murders, would you find that contradictory?
- deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]
- mgaunard 8mo ago
  No, I would call that being confused about the distinction between law making and law enforcement, which are traditionally very distinct things. It makes sense for there to be leeway due to the scale, automations and high rate of false positives with limited capabilities to correct them.
  - deleted 8mo ago
    [deleted]
  - sollewitt 8mo ago
    They are both the legislature and the judiciary.
  - ceejayoz 8mo ago
    > I would call that being confused about the distinction between law making and law enforcement… I think you're confused. Facebook does neither. Facebook makes and enforces their own policies, not laws. > It makes sense for there to be leeway due to the scale, automations and high rate of false positives with limited capabilities to correct them. They should staff a human review/appeals process again, then. They used COVID as the excuse to discard that cost center.
  - lubujackson 8mo ago
    79% of ALL child sex trafficking. 4 out of 5 child sex slaves exist thanks to Facebook's policies. But sure, go on and talk about "leeway" and "limited capabilities" for a company worth nearly a trillion dollars. Do you honestly believe this is acceptable? What are your vested interests here?
    - SpicyLemonZest 8mo ago
      Since you're emphasizing the ALL, I am obligated to nitpick that it is not all. The source article says that, but it's wrong; the underlying link clarifies that it's 79% of sex trafficking which occurs on social media. As has been discussed downthread, a social media platform with large marketshare is always going to have a large percentage of every bad thing that can happen on social media.
    - kstrauser 8mo ago
      Do you have a citation for that? You may be right for all I know. I don't know much about it. But that seems unlikely to me, and if it's true, I'd like a reference I can show others when I'm trying to get them to finally close their account.
      - pinkmuffinere 8mo ago
        The claim is made in the main article, supported by this link [1]. But I agree, I suspect it’s sensationalized, just because that number is _so high_. [1] https://techoversight.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/08-20230425-Meta-Fails-To-Keep-Kids-Safe.pdf?ref=dispatch.techoversight.org https://techoversight.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/08-2023...
        kstrauser 8mo ago
        Oh! Wow, so it is. Thanks! > [the report] found that 65% of child sex trafficking victims recruited on social media were recruited from Facebook Even in 2020, I'm very skeptical that so many children were on Facebook that it could account for 2/3 of recruitment. My own kids say that they and their friends are all but allergic to Facebook. It's the uncool hangout for old people, not where teens want to be. I may be wrong, and I'm certainly not going to tell someone that they're wrong for citing a government study. Still, I doubt it.
  - exceptione 8mo ago
    This sounds like almost the best business environment for criminals. "I am sorry judge, yes, it could be that we are involved in crime, but we have been too busy counting billions of dollars each year. As you might understand, businesses are not part of society, they should only be judged on their shareholder value. We reap the profits, society pays for the collateral damage, that's only fair." Yes, you mentioned leeway. That would only make sense in the context of an entity understanding it's role. It does like in the way above.
  - munk-a 8mo ago
    For what reason should we allow such leeway? No hosted platform in the 80s was responsible for a similar amount. Maybe if Meta can't properly police such a large platform it shouldn't be allowed to operate one. Facebook doesn't have to exist and we don't have to accept weak cries of "it's our best effort!"
    - parineum 8mo ago
      There should be leeway because sexual content is subjective and it gives a few chances to allow users to learn where the line is.
      - munk-a 8mo ago
        Let me clarify - why should we offer Meta leeway to implement such a flawed review system.
        parineum 8mo ago
        Why shouldn't we? It seems an incredibly difficult problem. They have reviewers who make subjective calls on subjective rules. The leeway not only gives the opportunity for the user to improve but also gives the reviewers leeway to flag borderline posts without harshly punishing users. 17 is a weird number but having a number is perfectly reasonable to me.
        a123b456c 8mo ago
        It's also possible that users could misuse the reporting system, in order to get other users' accounts suspended. Requiring N distinct reports of a suspension reason would seem to reduce misuses of the reporting system. The 17-reports threshold might have been found to balance type-1 and type-2 errors, as account removals are costly actions when made in error or as a result of reporting-system misuse.
- aetherson 8mo ago
  No? Like, I'd think that was a bad policy for murder in particular, but "we don't allow things but we give you a lot of chances to correct your behavior" is ordinary.
  - ceejayoz 8mo ago
    Three strikes is a "get your shit together" policy. Seventeen is a "yeah sure it's not allowed wink wink" policy. Especially when they'll just go make another account afterwards.
    - aetherson 8mo ago
      Nonsense. There are lots of things that you need more than three strikes for, especially on a platform that you expect to use for decades. I'm not here to say that Facebook's enforcement behavior is optimal, and I don't know that a "17 strike policy" is a full description of their enforcement behavior. But there are plenty of behaviors that you want to discourage but not go nuclear about.
charles_f 8mo ago
I think they're examples of the stronger lies

I don't understand how those statements are contradictory.

ceejayoz 8mo ago

If I said "we don't allow murder", but gave everyone 17 free murders, would you find that contradictory?

deleted 8mo ago
[deleted]
mgaunard 8mo ago
No, I would call that being confused about the distinction between law making and law enforcement, which are traditionally very distinct things. It makes sense for there to be leeway due to the scale, automations and high rate of false positives with limited capabilities to correct them.
- deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]
- sollewitt 8mo ago
  They are both the legislature and the judiciary.
- ceejayoz 8mo ago
  > I would call that being confused about the distinction between law making and law enforcement… I think you're confused. Facebook does neither. Facebook makes and enforces their own policies, not laws. > It makes sense for there to be leeway due to the scale, automations and high rate of false positives with limited capabilities to correct them. They should staff a human review/appeals process again, then. They used COVID as the excuse to discard that cost center.
- lubujackson 8mo ago
  79% of ALL child sex trafficking. 4 out of 5 child sex slaves exist thanks to Facebook's policies. But sure, go on and talk about "leeway" and "limited capabilities" for a company worth nearly a trillion dollars. Do you honestly believe this is acceptable? What are your vested interests here?
  - SpicyLemonZest 8mo ago
    Since you're emphasizing the ALL, I am obligated to nitpick that it is not all. The source article says that, but it's wrong; the underlying link clarifies that it's 79% of sex trafficking which occurs on social media. As has been discussed downthread, a social media platform with large marketshare is always going to have a large percentage of every bad thing that can happen on social media.
  - kstrauser 8mo ago
    Do you have a citation for that? You may be right for all I know. I don't know much about it. But that seems unlikely to me, and if it's true, I'd like a reference I can show others when I'm trying to get them to finally close their account.
    - pinkmuffinere 8mo ago
      The claim is made in the main article, supported by this link [1]. But I agree, I suspect it’s sensationalized, just because that number is _so high_. [1] https://techoversight.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/08-20230425-Meta-Fails-To-Keep-Kids-Safe.pdf?ref=dispatch.techoversight.org https://techoversight.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/08-2023...
      - kstrauser 8mo ago
        Oh! Wow, so it is. Thanks! > [the report] found that 65% of child sex trafficking victims recruited on social media were recruited from Facebook Even in 2020, I'm very skeptical that so many children were on Facebook that it could account for 2/3 of recruitment. My own kids say that they and their friends are all but allergic to Facebook. It's the uncool hangout for old people, not where teens want to be. I may be wrong, and I'm certainly not going to tell someone that they're wrong for citing a government study. Still, I doubt it.
- exceptione 8mo ago
  This sounds like almost the best business environment for criminals. "I am sorry judge, yes, it could be that we are involved in crime, but we have been too busy counting billions of dollars each year. As you might understand, businesses are not part of society, they should only be judged on their shareholder value. We reap the profits, society pays for the collateral damage, that's only fair." Yes, you mentioned leeway. That would only make sense in the context of an entity understanding it's role. It does like in the way above.
- munk-a 8mo ago
  For what reason should we allow such leeway? No hosted platform in the 80s was responsible for a similar amount. Maybe if Meta can't properly police such a large platform it shouldn't be allowed to operate one. Facebook doesn't have to exist and we don't have to accept weak cries of "it's our best effort!"
  - parineum 8mo ago
    There should be leeway because sexual content is subjective and it gives a few chances to allow users to learn where the line is.
    - munk-a 8mo ago
      Let me clarify - why should we offer Meta leeway to implement such a flawed review system.
      - parineum 8mo ago
        Why shouldn't we? It seems an incredibly difficult problem. They have reviewers who make subjective calls on subjective rules. The leeway not only gives the opportunity for the user to improve but also gives the reviewers leeway to flag borderline posts without harshly punishing users. 17 is a weird number but having a number is perfectly reasonable to me.
        a123b456c 8mo ago
        It's also possible that users could misuse the reporting system, in order to get other users' accounts suspended. Requiring N distinct reports of a suspension reason would seem to reduce misuses of the reporting system. The 17-reports threshold might have been found to balance type-1 and type-2 errors, as account removals are costly actions when made in error or as a result of reporting-system misuse.
aetherson 8mo ago
No? Like, I'd think that was a bad policy for murder in particular, but "we don't allow things but we give you a lot of chances to correct your behavior" is ordinary.
- ceejayoz 8mo ago
  Three strikes is a "get your shit together" policy. Seventeen is a "yeah sure it's not allowed wink wink" policy. Especially when they'll just go make another account afterwards.
  - aetherson 8mo ago
    Nonsense. There are lots of things that you need more than three strikes for, especially on a platform that you expect to use for decades. I'm not here to say that Facebook's enforcement behavior is optimal, and I don't know that a "17 strike policy" is a full description of their enforcement behavior. But there are plenty of behaviors that you want to discourage but not go nuclear about.

charles_f 8mo ago

I think they're examples of the stronger lies