4 ms·

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

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.
      - saalweachter 8mo ago
        You don't really need a majority of potential victims to go to location X for victims from location X to make up a majority of victims; that just means that location X is a low-risk, high-reward place for criminals to lurk looking for victims.
      - jacobsimon 8mo ago
        The number is wrong / the citation is misleading. It’s closer to 20-30% according to that study, the 79% is referring specifically to cases involving social media, of which Meta platforms are obviously going to make up a large percentage. There’s also a reporting bias here I’m sure - if Meta is better at reporting these cases then they will become a larger percentage, etc.
- LanceH 8mo ago
  80% of people die within 20 miles of their home. So...if they just don't go home, 80% of people would be immortal.
- amluto 8mo ago
  > 4 out of 5 child sex slaves exist thanks to Facebook's policies. Even if your 79% number is correct, this does not follow. It like if someone said, 30 years ago, that 95% of total advertisements were in the classified section that 9 out of 10 retail sales happened thanks to the classifieds. (I’m not trying to excuse Facebook’s behavior. But maybe criticisms of Facebook would be more effective if they stayed on track.)
  - deleted 8mo ago
    [deleted]
  - kelseyfrog 8mo ago
    Observer take: until your parenthetical it looks like you're supporting Facebook's actions by nitpicking weird edge cases.
    - Lerc 8mo ago
      There lies much of the problem. Nobody in Salem wanted to be seen to stand up for witches. I have never had a Facebook account because I never liked what they do, but this 'evidence' against them seems like they are relying on the seriousness of the allegations more than the accuracy.
      - ceejayoz 8mo ago
        The problem with witch hunts is witches aren't real; every witch you find is guaranteed to be a false positive. A witch hunt that finds actual witches everywhere isn't really a "witch hunt" in the sense the term is usually used.
        Lerc 8mo ago
        You are saying that from our perspective. I don't think the argument that witches are not real would have gained you much ground back then. We don't have the years of analysis of what actually happened for things happening right now. While a lot of people feel a lot of certainty about all manner of social media harms, the scientific consensus is much less clear. Sure you can pull up studies showing something that looks pretty bad, but you can also find ones that say that climate change is not occurring. The best we have to go on is scientific consensus. The consensus, is not there yet. How do you tell if Jonathan Haidt is another Andrew Wakefield?
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.

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.
    - saalweachter 8mo ago
      You don't really need a majority of potential victims to go to location X for victims from location X to make up a majority of victims; that just means that location X is a low-risk, high-reward place for criminals to lurk looking for victims.
    - jacobsimon 8mo ago
      The number is wrong / the citation is misleading. It’s closer to 20-30% according to that study, the 79% is referring specifically to cases involving social media, of which Meta platforms are obviously going to make up a large percentage. There’s also a reporting bias here I’m sure - if Meta is better at reporting these cases then they will become a larger percentage, etc.
LanceH 8mo ago
80% of people die within 20 miles of their home. So...if they just don't go home, 80% of people would be immortal.
amluto 8mo ago
> 4 out of 5 child sex slaves exist thanks to Facebook's policies. Even if your 79% number is correct, this does not follow. It like if someone said, 30 years ago, that 95% of total advertisements were in the classified section that 9 out of 10 retail sales happened thanks to the classifieds. (I’m not trying to excuse Facebook’s behavior. But maybe criticisms of Facebook would be more effective if they stayed on track.)
- deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]
- kelseyfrog 8mo ago
  Observer take: until your parenthetical it looks like you're supporting Facebook's actions by nitpicking weird edge cases.
  - Lerc 8mo ago
    There lies much of the problem. Nobody in Salem wanted to be seen to stand up for witches. I have never had a Facebook account because I never liked what they do, but this 'evidence' against them seems like they are relying on the seriousness of the allegations more than the accuracy.
    - ceejayoz 8mo ago
      The problem with witch hunts is witches aren't real; every witch you find is guaranteed to be a false positive. A witch hunt that finds actual witches everywhere isn't really a "witch hunt" in the sense the term is usually used.
      - Lerc 8mo ago
        You are saying that from our perspective. I don't think the argument that witches are not real would have gained you much ground back then. We don't have the years of analysis of what actually happened for things happening right now. While a lot of people feel a lot of certainty about all manner of social media harms, the scientific consensus is much less clear. Sure you can pull up studies showing something that looks pretty bad, but you can also find ones that say that climate change is not occurring. The best we have to go on is scientific consensus. The consensus, is not there yet. How do you tell if Jonathan Haidt is another Andrew Wakefield?

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.