Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 353 posts

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

#271

Post by robbick »

timomax wrote: post #250
flexie wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Facebook has "no clue what kind of stuff gets posted" because they conveniently have decided to have no clue. Facebook enjoys the protection of its IPR and the right to sell advertisement overseas in places like New Zealand or Europe. Why should New Zealand or Europe allow their business model of close to zero oversight of content? Facebook is not a startup. It's a huge company making billions showing ads to billions…

Exactly. There is no cult of "free speech" in Europe. We will just block such sites if they don't reform.

*Or more likely, heavily fine

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

#272

Post by pjc50 »

ukoki wrote: post #242
djaychela wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they don't know what's being posted, maybe they should change how their platform works? If a normal business behaved like this and then just shrugged their shoulders, no one would stand for it. A traditional broadcaster would have their licence revoked. A print publisher would be in serious trouble. But when it happens online, somehow it's someone else's problem. This seems odd to me.

> If a normal business behaved like this and then just shrugged their shoulders, no one would stand for it That's not quite true. No one blames the US postal service for death threats sent in the mail. Facebook is not the USPS, but it's not a traditional publisher either — and just like the USPS it simply couldn't work if you wanted the same level of editorial oversight as a publisher. edit: typo

> No one blames the US postal service for death threats sent in the mail

Mailing death threats is illegal: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/876 (so much for "free speech", eh?)

It doesn't appear to be illegal to post them on Facebook?

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

#273

Post by ryanlol »

HNthrow22 wrote: post #257
o10449366 wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Haha, psychopaths don't have to publish in TV or newspapers because they do it for them. Go back a decade or two before Facebook was a big deal and you'd see CNN, NYTimes, NBC, etc. all feverishly covering Columbine, spending weeks profiling the shooters and every detail of their lives, broadcasting bar graphs and rankings of mass murders like it's a video game scoreboard and openly publishing their manifestos and na…

There's a huge difference between covering terrible events as a news story and providing the platform for content engineered to divide and radicalize to proliferate to millions. Also yes YouTube should be liable, not for the video of the NZ shooting being re-uploaded, but for the thousands of hours of hateful violent propaganda they allow to spread on their platform even facilitating it by suggesting it to users with…

>If 20 people were to stand up on a soapbox with a megaphone in times square screaming about /r/redpill, /r/fatpeoplehate, etc concepts they would be removed if legal, and if not legal a huge countermovement would appear to try to force them out. On Reddit you get both the megaphone and the safe space, but are still just as easily accessible to the public as anywhere.

I wouldn't be so sure. People would probably just disregard the crazy screaming r/redpill or r/fatpeoplehate preachers, just like they disregard the Black Hebrew Israelites.

It's not terribly unusual to see people preaching about crazy hateful shit on the street, it is unusual for anyone to actually care though.

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

#274

Post by wukerplank »

acdc4life wrote: post #35

"[They] allow the live streaming of suicides, rapes, and murders, continue to host and publish the mosque attack video, allow advertisers to target ‘Jew haters’ and other hateful market segments, and refuse to accept any responsibility for any content or harm." I stopped reading after this point. Facebook has no clue what kind of stuff gets posted on their platform, and their AI isn't powerful enough to detect it. Th…

They are doing a great job in the war on the nipple, though. And containing viral content with negative publicity against them.

I don't know about AI, but they have an army of moderators with a strict set of rules. Yet, content that many people would consider hate speech, racism, etc. does not get blocked, even after being reported several times. Are the moderators to lax in interpreting the rules? Or are the rules not strict enough.

(To give context: I believe that hate speech is protected by free speech. And should FB block white supremacists it would not be cencorship.)

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

#275

Post by bigiain »

ukoki wrote: post #242
djaychela wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they don't know what's being posted, maybe they should change how their platform works? If a normal business behaved like this and then just shrugged their shoulders, no one would stand for it. A traditional broadcaster would have their licence revoked. A print publisher would be in serious trouble. But when it happens online, somehow it's someone else's problem. This seems odd to me.

> If a normal business behaved like this and then just shrugged their shoulders, no one would stand for it That's not quite true. No one blames the US postal service for death threats sent in the mail. Facebook is not the USPS, but it's not a traditional publisher either — and just like the USPS it simply couldn't work if you wanted the same level of editorial oversight as a publisher. edit: typo

If US Post opened and scanned all the letters, and offered to sell targeted firearm advertising to people who send death threats, nobody would say "That's OK, they're just 'The Platform'"...

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

#276

Post by bigiain »

tjpnz wrote: post #236
djaychela wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they don't know what's being posted, maybe they should change how their platform works? If a normal business behaved like this and then just shrugged their shoulders, no one would stand for it. A traditional broadcaster would have their licence revoked. A print publisher would be in serious trouble. But when it happens online, somehow it's someone else's problem. This seems odd to me.

Exactly this. I work in C2C e-commerce which in my jurisdiction has very strict laws around ensuring we do due diligence on the people we allow onto our platform. If we didn't we would be finished. The only way to get Facebook to start taking this more seriously is through more regulation.

I partly agree.

It'd also be nice if individuals were held responsible for death threats and rape threats they post on-line.

Facebook are morally corrupt because they aid and abet morally corrupt individuals. Both Facebook and those individuals should be held to account for that.

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

#277

Post by bigiain »

wukerplank wrote: post #274
acdc4life wrote: post #35

"[They] allow the live streaming of suicides, rapes, and murders, continue to host and publish the mosque attack video, allow advertisers to target ‘Jew haters’ and other hateful market segments, and refuse to accept any responsibility for any content or harm." I stopped reading after this point. Facebook has no clue what kind of stuff gets posted on their platform, and their AI isn't powerful enough to detect it. Th…

They are doing a great job in the war on the nipple, though. And containing viral content with negative publicity against them. I don't know about AI, but they have an army of moderators with a strict set of rules. Yet, content that many people would consider hate speech, racism, etc. does not get blocked, even after being reported several times. Are the moderators to lax in interpreting the rules? Or are the rules n…

I'm told, but have not confirmed it myself, that Facebook do a fine job of censoring Nazi hate speech in Germany. But somehow they cannot do it elsewhere or for other sorts of hate speech. Which is 100% nothing to do with maximising advertising revenue by allowing and enabling hate speech elsewhere...

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

#278

Post by bloak »

onion2k wrote: post #221
NeedMoreTea wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Facebook, Youtube or whichever platform is the broadcaster in this instance. If they're not, why do we sue the TV station rather than the production company of the programme? CBS can yell "don't look at us, we didn't make Game of Thrones". It's their exception that is looking increasingly absurd.

We don't sue the company who owns the radio tower if it's terrestrial TV, or the hosting company if it's on-demand, or the bandwidth provider if it's cable. The important bit is who makes the decision to broadcast something; in the case of a TV show it's CBS, and in the case of a live stream on Facebook that's the user. I think a potential solution would be to delay livestreams by 20 minutes for anyone who isn't does…

"in the case of a live stream on Facebook that's the user"

You need to argue that rather than just state it. I can see arguments for and against the proposition, but the facts that Facebook attaches advertising, sometimes removes content, carefully tunes their platform to maximise "engagement", and the user has no direct relationship with the receivers of the live stream, do rather suggest that Facebook is the publisher and the role of the user is more like that of someone who writes a letter to the editor that gets published in a newspaper - except, of course, that Facebook is publishing nearly everything, but I don't see that that's a fundamental difference.

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

#279

Post by bamboozled »

raxxorrax wrote: post #259
bamboozled wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually they should not allow live content posts, just like TV broadcasting corporations are required to have a delay in case something harmful or disturbing were to be broadcast. They're 100% responsible for building a platform which allows for this kind of content to be posted and broadcast en-masse with zero responsibility or accountability. It amazes me people think that making a profit from this kind of "platfo…

But TV is dead and the social appeal for networks like this isn't filtered or delayed content.

TV isn't dead, it just changed, just ask Netflix.

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

#280

Post by negamax »

pjc50 wrote: post #272
ukoki wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If a normal business behaved like this and then just shrugged their shoulders, no one would stand for it That's not quite true. No one blames the US postal service for death threats sent in the mail. Facebook is not the USPS, but it's not a traditional publisher either — and just like the USPS it simply couldn't work if you wanted the same level of editorial oversight as a publisher. edit: typo

> No one blames the US postal service for death threats sent in the mail Mailing death threats is illegal: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/876 (so much for "free speech", eh?) It doesn't appear to be illegal to post them on Facebook?

So yeah, change the law. Hold the posters accountable. Why Facebook? That's absurd
Post reply on HN