4 ms·

You’re either an open platform or you’re not. Why can Meta run fake ads of my prime minister or the CBC to front scams with no due process, but for this they c

You’re either an open platform or you’re not. Why can Meta run fake ads of my prime minister or the CBC to front scams with no due process, but for this they can use their judgement to block? I know they’re an American company and my complaints are Canadian, but the double standard stinks.

abustamam 6mo ago
Did anyone ever accuse Meta of being an open platform though?
- worik 6mo ago
  > Did anyone ever accuse Meta of being an open platform though? My memory says it was Meta who said that. Zuck himself....
  - abustamam 6mo ago
    I remember that but I was talking about anyone outside the company. I think many platforms call themselves open but most aren't really.
    - worik 6mo ago
      Yes, you are correct! Mark Zuckerberg is a liar
- acdha 6mo ago
  Isn’t that their defense against responsibility for their customers’ content? Having some broad filtering for legal requirements or scams is one thing but if they’re doing this it seems like support for cases alleging that they have editorial control and therefore responsibility.
  - abustamam 6mo ago
    That's true. I haven't been keeping up with FB lawsuits but from what I gather of HN sentiment, FB is not open and never has been. Any FB exec claiming to be open is probably just doing exactly what you said, and they'll probably find a way to spin it to include this exclusion as part of their "openness."
  - toast0 6mo ago
    Legally, they don't need to choose. Section 230 limits provider liability for moderating user content and also limits provider liability for not moderating user content. I think the intent of Section 230 was to apply liability to the users making the content, not the service provider transmitting it; however, IIRC, cutrent jurisprudence makes it very hard to compell service providers to identify users in civil cases, so civil liability is hard to pursue, unless the user identifies themself in their content. It's not a question of if they're a common carrier or nor; they don't need to be, and typically, they don't try to be.
bilekas 6mo ago
I don't know Meta ever claimed to be an open platform, Twitter did though. It used to be an almost 'human protocol'. But as humans, it was flawed.
nubinetwork 6mo ago
> fake cbc ads I see those through google more than I do through FB ads. /shrug
garfieldnate 6mo ago
You can't expect a company to support you in directly hurting them. This reminds me of a guy I know that sued his bank regarding a loan, but he used a terrible lawyer. The bank pretty quickly took their own action, including stopping all payments from his account (as they claimed that the money was theirs).
- flawn 6mo ago
  It's not any company, its Meta and the channels they administrate come with a set of responsibilities and principles, and one such is not to break these by arbitrary, willful removal of totally legal ads.
  - qeternity 6mo ago
    > It's not any company, its Meta and the channels they administrate come with a set of responsibilities and principles Sorry, which laws stipulate these special responsibilities and principles?
- mijowi 6mo ago
  The bank stole his money, claiming it was theirs? That’s a surprisingly strong action considering there’s no way that could hold up in court…right?

abustamam 6mo ago

Did anyone ever accuse Meta of being an open platform though?

worik 6mo ago
> Did anyone ever accuse Meta of being an open platform though? My memory says it was Meta who said that. Zuck himself....
- abustamam 6mo ago
  I remember that but I was talking about anyone outside the company. I think many platforms call themselves open but most aren't really.
  - worik 6mo ago
    Yes, you are correct! Mark Zuckerberg is a liar
acdha 6mo ago
Isn’t that their defense against responsibility for their customers’ content? Having some broad filtering for legal requirements or scams is one thing but if they’re doing this it seems like support for cases alleging that they have editorial control and therefore responsibility.
- abustamam 6mo ago
  That's true. I haven't been keeping up with FB lawsuits but from what I gather of HN sentiment, FB is not open and never has been. Any FB exec claiming to be open is probably just doing exactly what you said, and they'll probably find a way to spin it to include this exclusion as part of their "openness."
- toast0 6mo ago
  Legally, they don't need to choose. Section 230 limits provider liability for moderating user content and also limits provider liability for not moderating user content. I think the intent of Section 230 was to apply liability to the users making the content, not the service provider transmitting it; however, IIRC, cutrent jurisprudence makes it very hard to compell service providers to identify users in civil cases, so civil liability is hard to pursue, unless the user identifies themself in their content. It's not a question of if they're a common carrier or nor; they don't need to be, and typically, they don't try to be.

bilekas 6mo ago

I don't know Meta ever claimed to be an open platform, Twitter did though. It used to be an almost 'human protocol'. But as humans, it was flawed.

nubinetwork 6mo ago

> fake cbc ads I see those through google more than I do through FB ads. /shrug

garfieldnate 6mo ago

You can't expect a company to support you in directly hurting them. This reminds me of a guy I know that sued his bank regarding a loan, but he used a terrible lawyer. The bank pretty quickly took their own action, including stopping all payments from his account (as they claimed that the money was theirs).

flawn 6mo ago
It's not any company, its Meta and the channels they administrate come with a set of responsibilities and principles, and one such is not to break these by arbitrary, willful removal of totally legal ads.
- qeternity 6mo ago
  > It's not any company, its Meta and the channels they administrate come with a set of responsibilities and principles Sorry, which laws stipulate these special responsibilities and principles?
mijowi 6mo ago
The bank stole his money, claiming it was theirs? That’s a surprisingly strong action considering there’s no way that could hold up in court…right?