Facebook are 'morally bankrupt liars' says New Zealand's privacy commissioner

Post by gsich » Mon, Apr 08, 2019, 7:25 AM UTC

o10449366 wrote: post #166

NeedMoreTea wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's take it to the absurd. I am NOT shifting any blame from the perpetrator. I am placing additional blame on a medium that isn't willing to exercise adequate restraint or control. A bank undoubtedly has security measures in place to prevent robbery, if they don't bother, they won't last long. Nonetheless, there are regulations on what may and may not be done for public spaces, how crowded they may be to pass fire…

> Neither a mosque nor bank should be closed for a circumstance that could not reasonably have been predicted. How is this any different from Facebook? A bank has security measures in place to prevent robbery, but a robbery could still take place in one and is more likely to occur in one because it's a high value target. Facebook has human and AI moderation in place that automatically processes anything you upload. U…

Post by zimpenfish » Mon, Apr 08, 2019, 7:32 AM UTC

ethbro wrote: post #157

WillPostForFood wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you don't have the ability to control your premises, or employ enough security, perhaps you should not be permitted to operate those premises. So we should shut down the mosques in New Zealand because they didn't control their premises and keep the shooter out? Should we shut down banks because they didn't have enough security to keep a bank robber out? You are shifting the blame away from the perpetrator. Every c…

Those other businesses aren't running 40% profit margins. It's a fair question to ask, "If a company is that profitable and having toxic effects, then why shouldn't it pay some of the cost of addressing its toxic effects?" The tendency on HN is to say exploitive governments want to tax technology startups. But we're not talking about technology startups. We're talking about the new old-old ATT.

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Apr 08, 2019, 7:37 AM UTC

ethbro wrote: post #157

WillPostForFood wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you don't have the ability to control your premises, or employ enough security, perhaps you should not be permitted to operate those premises. So we should shut down the mosques in New Zealand because they didn't control their premises and keep the shooter out? Should we shut down banks because they didn't have enough security to keep a bank robber out? You are shifting the blame away from the perpetrator. Every c…

Those other businesses aren't running 40% profit margins. It's a fair question to ask, "If a company is that profitable and having toxic effects, then why shouldn't it pay some of the cost of addressing its toxic effects?" The tendency on HN is to say exploitive governments want to tax technology startups. But we're not talking about technology startups. We're talking about the new old-old ATT.

Post by kmlx » Mon, Apr 08, 2019, 7:41 AM UTC

doldge wrote: post #197

xupybd wrote: post #6

I'm a New Zealander. I think our privacy commissioner is so totally wrong here. It's a hard technical problem to solve. It's an even harder political problem to solve. Automatic censorship of live feeds, how do you do that? Automatic take downs of videos doctored to avoid being removed, how to do you do that? Then if you have these automatic systems in place how do you avoid getting accused of censoring everyone? I d…

If you are a New Zealander, then you should know better. Freedom of speech is NOT an unalienable right in NZ, nor has it ever been. The ridiculous scare-mongering by some of the sibling comments on this post about this being "the start of the end for NZ" is not representative of: A) New Zealand B) Most countries outside of the US. (Because it's a continuation of existing policy; That not all speech is protected). As…

Post by ben_w » Mon, Apr 08, 2019, 7:45 AM UTC

o10449366 wrote: post #166

NeedMoreTea wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's take it to the absurd. I am NOT shifting any blame from the perpetrator. I am placing additional blame on a medium that isn't willing to exercise adequate restraint or control. A bank undoubtedly has security measures in place to prevent robbery, if they don't bother, they won't last long. Nonetheless, there are regulations on what may and may not be done for public spaces, how crowded they may be to pass fire…

> Neither a mosque nor bank should be closed for a circumstance that could not reasonably have been predicted. How is this any different from Facebook? A bank has security measures in place to prevent robbery, but a robbery could still take place in one and is more likely to occur in one because it's a high value target. Facebook has human and AI moderation in place that automatically processes anything you upload. U…