4 ms·

Transmission and protection are not neutral. They're a choice. Facebook has freedom of association and is allowed not to host content they believe harmful. Some

by wpietri 2mo ago

Transmission and protection are not neutral. They're a choice. Facebook has freedom of association and is allowed not to host content they believe harmful. Something they already do extensively. [1] [1] https://transparency.meta.com/policies/community-standards/ https://transparency.meta.com/policies/community-standards/

deleted 2mo ago
[deleted]
fc417fc802 2mo ago
They are a choice, yes, the same way anything is. They are neutral choices in the same way roads and other infrastructure "permitting" criminals to use them are. The fact that Meta does not choose to be neutral in all such cases is not an argument against that.
- actionfromafar 2mo ago
  It's more like explicitly building infra for criminals.
- wpietri 2mo ago
  It is definitely a valid argument. "Facebook should allow all content" is a consistent position if ultimately a stupid one. But once they decide to intervene all of the downstream choices are valid to question.
  - fc417fc802 2mo ago
    They were always valid to question regardless but that doesn't mean intervention is inherently good (nor bad). We actively work to prevent anyone with a suspended license from using the road, so does it follow that failing to do the same for convicted rapists is a bad thing? I don't think "Facebook should allow all content that is within the bounds of the law of the local jurisdiction" is stupid at all. Ideally that's how infrastructure-esque operations should conduct themselves.
    - wpietri 2mo ago
      Did someone suggest intervention was always good? That revised standard isn't obviously stupid, just vacuous, in two ways. One, Facebook is nothing like neutral content infrastructure. Two, laws come from somewhere. They are rooted in morality, and are always a snapshot of the historic violations bad enough to drive laws. Anybody who bases their behavior purely on the law has no morals, just fear of consequences. And when it's something new in the world, that stance guarantees ongoing harm until the law catches up.

by wpietri 2mo ago

deleted 2mo ago

[deleted]

fc417fc802 2mo ago

They are a choice, yes, the same way anything is. They are neutral choices in the same way roads and other infrastructure "permitting" criminals to use them are. The fact that Meta does not choose to be neutral in all such cases is not an argument against that.

actionfromafar 2mo ago
It's more like explicitly building infra for criminals.
wpietri 2mo ago
It is definitely a valid argument. "Facebook should allow all content" is a consistent position if ultimately a stupid one. But once they decide to intervene all of the downstream choices are valid to question.
- fc417fc802 2mo ago
  They were always valid to question regardless but that doesn't mean intervention is inherently good (nor bad). We actively work to prevent anyone with a suspended license from using the road, so does it follow that failing to do the same for convicted rapists is a bad thing? I don't think "Facebook should allow all content that is within the bounds of the law of the local jurisdiction" is stupid at all. Ideally that's how infrastructure-esque operations should conduct themselves.
  - wpietri 2mo ago
    Did someone suggest intervention was always good? That revised standard isn't obviously stupid, just vacuous, in two ways. One, Facebook is nothing like neutral content infrastructure. Two, laws come from somewhere. They are rooted in morality, and are always a snapshot of the historic violations bad enough to drive laws. Anybody who bases their behavior purely on the law has no morals, just fear of consequences. And when it's something new in the world, that stance guarantees ongoing harm until the law catches up.