3 ms·

Yes it's meaningful, and the fine amount should reflect that. But hypothetically, if it's (just throwing a random number out there) 1 image in 50 billion, and F

by Ajedi32 3mo ago

Yes it's meaningful, and the fine amount should reflect that. But hypothetically, if it's (just throwing a random number out there) 1 image in 50 billion, and Facebook gets more benefit from the 50 billion good images than society loses from the 1 bad one, and society recovers its loss from Facebook via a fine, but the fine isn't big enough to make them change their behavior, how exactly is that a problem?

callc 3mo ago
The problem is equating profitability with what societies want and don’t want. Morality exists outside of the business world (and it should inside as well). Further, it is a societies’ right to enforce the boundaries of what business are allow to do / not do. For example: banning ads along roads and scenic areas. Idk, the whole idea of “how much fines will I get doing X shitty business practice” is just gross. I’d rather see harsher enforcement to keep businesses on the straight and narrow more often than not.
- nathan_compton 3mo ago
  Pretty sure this isn't what they are teaching at the best business schools.
- Ajedi32 3mo ago
  Perhaps, but when you're operating at any significant scale accidents become a statistical certainty. 0 screw ups, ever is not a realistically achievable goal. And if some limited number of screw ups is allowable, that necessarily becomes an insurable cost that amounts to "just the cost of doing business", so I don't really see the complaint. Concrete example: If you run a construction business, even if you take all the required precautions, statistically you're going to get 9.2 of your employees killed for every 100,000 man-hours they work.[1] Is that proof all construction companies are evil, and we should shut them down for murdering their employees? Is it a problem that having to buy life insurance is "just a cost of doing business" for these companies? [1]: https://www.bls.gov/charts/census-of-fatal-occupational-injuries/number-and-rate-of-fatal-work-injuries-by-industry.htm https://www.bls.gov/charts/census-of-fatal-occupational-inju...
  - happymellon 3mo ago
    This is the reaction to the FAANGs obviously not caring that they are publishing CSAM. They will be given more leeway for small scale "screwups" if they can show that they are working to reduce large scale issues. As it is we are dealing with organisations that don't give a shit, so peoples attitudes reflect that back at them.
    - Ajedi32 2mo ago
      I don't see anything here to suggest that they don't care. Is the fact that 9.2/100,000 full time workers keep getting killed every year in the construction industry proof those companies don't care that they're getting their workers killed? Or is it just that at scale, bad things inevitably happen whether you care or not? Maybe it's true Facebook doesn't care about this and if so that would be a problem, but I also think HN has an anti-FANG bias that causes people to give far too much weight to every negative news story that comes out about these companies. The only real issue with FAANG IMO is just the way software copyright and network effects grant them local monopolies in certain spaces. Overall I don't think they're as a whole any better or worse than any other company, large or small.
  - FireBeyond 3mo ago
    Yes, screw ups become a certainty. But these are screw ups that the company doesn't meaningfully care to fix. Just as we'd have an issue with a company that has OSHA findings that they continue to ignore. But with Facebook, "Our automated review found nothing wrong with [this ad that implies a young child performing sexual activities]". Also, speaking of statistics, what? > statistically you're going to get 9.2 of your employees killed for every 100,000 man-hours they work. No, you're not. This would mean if you employed 50 full-time employees you'd expect 9 of them to die per year. What that graph actually says: "In a population where there are 100,000 construction workers, you can expect 9 fatal workplace accidents per year".
    - Ajedi32 3mo ago
      Yes sorry, man-workyears not man-hours. > "Our automated review found nothing wrong with [this ad that implies a young child performing sexual activities]" That's also a screw-up, and they should be fined accordingly, proportional to the amount of harm this screw up is causing to society. If there are any practical steps they can take to fix the problem, that should incentivize them to do so. But if for whatever reason it turns out the only possible way to fix such screw-ups is for them to hire 100,000 employees to manually review every single ad, and the cost of that both exceeds the cost of paying the fines and the opportunity cost of turning off this feature completely, so they choose not to do that, is that a problem? It's like if you tried to insist construction companies evacuate all workers from the construction site before operating any heavy machinery. Maybe that would save some lives, but it would also be completely impractical.

by Ajedi32 3mo ago

callc 3mo ago

The problem is equating profitability with what societies want and don’t want. Morality exists outside of the business world (and it should inside as well). Further, it is a societies’ right to enforce the boundaries of what business are allow to do / not do. For example: banning ads along roads and scenic areas. Idk, the whole idea of “how much fines will I get doing X shitty business practice” is just gross. I’d rather see harsher enforcement to keep businesses on the straight and narrow more often than not.

nathan_compton 3mo ago
Pretty sure this isn't what they are teaching at the best business schools.
Ajedi32 3mo ago
Perhaps, but when you're operating at any significant scale accidents become a statistical certainty. 0 screw ups, ever is not a realistically achievable goal. And if some limited number of screw ups is allowable, that necessarily becomes an insurable cost that amounts to "just the cost of doing business", so I don't really see the complaint. Concrete example: If you run a construction business, even if you take all the required precautions, statistically you're going to get 9.2 of your employees killed for every 100,000 man-hours they work.[1] Is that proof all construction companies are evil, and we should shut them down for murdering their employees? Is it a problem that having to buy life insurance is "just a cost of doing business" for these companies? [1]: https://www.bls.gov/charts/census-of-fatal-occupational-injuries/number-and-rate-of-fatal-work-injuries-by-industry.htm https://www.bls.gov/charts/census-of-fatal-occupational-inju...
- happymellon 3mo ago
  This is the reaction to the FAANGs obviously not caring that they are publishing CSAM. They will be given more leeway for small scale "screwups" if they can show that they are working to reduce large scale issues. As it is we are dealing with organisations that don't give a shit, so peoples attitudes reflect that back at them.
  - Ajedi32 2mo ago
    I don't see anything here to suggest that they don't care. Is the fact that 9.2/100,000 full time workers keep getting killed every year in the construction industry proof those companies don't care that they're getting their workers killed? Or is it just that at scale, bad things inevitably happen whether you care or not? Maybe it's true Facebook doesn't care about this and if so that would be a problem, but I also think HN has an anti-FANG bias that causes people to give far too much weight to every negative news story that comes out about these companies. The only real issue with FAANG IMO is just the way software copyright and network effects grant them local monopolies in certain spaces. Overall I don't think they're as a whole any better or worse than any other company, large or small.
- FireBeyond 3mo ago
  Yes, screw ups become a certainty. But these are screw ups that the company doesn't meaningfully care to fix. Just as we'd have an issue with a company that has OSHA findings that they continue to ignore. But with Facebook, "Our automated review found nothing wrong with [this ad that implies a young child performing sexual activities]". Also, speaking of statistics, what? > statistically you're going to get 9.2 of your employees killed for every 100,000 man-hours they work. No, you're not. This would mean if you employed 50 full-time employees you'd expect 9 of them to die per year. What that graph actually says: "In a population where there are 100,000 construction workers, you can expect 9 fatal workplace accidents per year".
  - Ajedi32 3mo ago
    Yes sorry, man-workyears not man-hours. > "Our automated review found nothing wrong with [this ad that implies a young child performing sexual activities]" That's also a screw-up, and they should be fined accordingly, proportional to the amount of harm this screw up is causing to society. If there are any practical steps they can take to fix the problem, that should incentivize them to do so. But if for whatever reason it turns out the only possible way to fix such screw-ups is for them to hire 100,000 employees to manually review every single ad, and the cost of that both exceeds the cost of paying the fines and the opportunity cost of turning off this feature completely, so they choose not to do that, is that a problem? It's like if you tried to insist construction companies evacuate all workers from the construction site before operating any heavy machinery. Maybe that would save some lives, but it would also be completely impractical.