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.
Facebook are 'morally bankrupt liars' says New Zealand's privacy commissioner
321–330 of 353 posts
Re: Facebook are 'morally bankrupt liars' says New Zealand's privacy commissioner
#322Earlier 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
Re: Facebook are 'morally bankrupt liars' says New Zealand's privacy commissioner
#323"[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…
Re: Facebook are 'morally bankrupt liars' says New Zealand's privacy commissioner
#324> [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 Sounds a bit like 'murder, arson and jaywalking'. Being 'hateful' is not the same as killing people on a stream.
If 'hate' means 'wanting people dead or gone', then it could be a step on the same path. Maybe it's a cultural thing, but from a Christian perspective, they're not so different.
Hate just means a strong dislike of something. Someone can be hateful of a presidential candidate without wanting them dead or gone. Is that hateful speech, or is this acceptable? Furthermore, do we really trust governments to decide what is?*
*: note that I'm not saying that I do trust FAANGs to make this decision either.
Re: Facebook are 'morally bankrupt liars' says New Zealand's privacy commissioner
#325Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> Facebook could employ thousands more to moderate and supervise - without destroying their ability to make profit You're underestimating the scale of this problem. Facebook users create billions of new posts a day. And, tens of millions of these posts get reported for moderation per day. "Thousands of more" employees isn't going to solve the problem. Assuming each posts takes 10 minutes of labor to review, you woul…
> "Thousands of more" employees isn't going to solve the problem. Assuming each posts takes 10 minutes of labor to review, you would need an army of 200K individuals, and this amount of labor would cost many billions of dollars per year. Agreed. Let’s require them to do that.
I could go find the shooter’s illegal manifesto and post it here, I might be banned after some period of time but just like on Facebook it would have had time for other people to see it.
Applied consistently this standard would kill most online forums and that type of thing.
Re: Facebook are 'morally bankrupt liars' says New Zealand's privacy commissioner
#326Earlier 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
Then maybe it shouldn't behave like one. FB actively selects articles to show on your feed - via algorithm, instead via human, but the effect is the same.
That is a choice they could easily undo. It is also a choice a large number of people would be happy to see. ("I just want my feed ordered by date, no filtering" is a very common request). The only reason that doesn't happen is that the enragement metrics go up if you select what you present to people.
So FB is deliberately choosing articles to show you, and it is making that selection for monetary gain. How is that not a publisher?
Re: Facebook are 'morally bankrupt liars' says New Zealand's privacy commissioner
#327Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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…
To clarify you're responding to a comment I've quoted from another user- The issue becomes with the internet being able to silence all dissent and create re-enforcing echo chmabers. The forces at play are not stupid and they target disenfranchised, lonely, young males full of angst. Imagine a packed hall with hundreds of people loudly cheering for someone calling for genocide of X group, this is what these hate clust…
Do nazis not have conferences? I find it hard to believe that this doesn’t happen.
>We've outlawed child pornography and that hasn't led us down any slippery slopes.
Has it not? Many jurisdictions outlaw even computer generated porn depicting minors. We’ve essentially banned people of certain sexual orientation from consuming any porn at all, how is that not a slippery slope?
But hey, I guess lots of people want to live in a world where perverts go to prison for jerking off to anime girls.
Re: Facebook are 'morally bankrupt liars' says New Zealand's privacy commissioner
#328Earlier quoted context omitted.
In theory, yes. In practice I haven't found a way to do so, especially with Facebook being a big American company and me living on the other side of the ocean... The best case I can imagine would probably be an e-mail from the police department arriving at Facebook a few months after and the content being removed, there isn't any real way to damage them without the effort and luck of a targeted PR attack.
Aren't your national newspapers interested in this? It might not become an international scandal, but some newspaper attention will get noticed, and will likely get mentioned again and again in every political discussion about the impact Facebook has on our society. Also, report it to the police with all the evidence and screenshots you've got and just let them handle it. It might not bring down Facebook on its own,…
A criminal conviction of a Facebook employee would make a good story, but that is much harder.
Re: Facebook are 'morally bankrupt liars' says New Zealand's privacy commissioner
#329I am all in for dismantling facebook but this is just a rant. Zuck has way more things in favor for him legally. What confuses the hell out of me is that i always saw from childhood US executives are held accountable for their company's action. Any scandal and i would see the CEO step down. The amount of damage the zuck has caused the world and yet still he wont step down. What the actual hell
On stepping down or being forced out: Regardless of any other factor, it's because he controls roughly 60% of the voting stock. He has about 18% of the stock, but his class-B shares get 10 votes per share, while normal class-A shares get only 1 vote. So it would take something truly black-swan level to get him out.
Re: Facebook are 'morally bankrupt liars' says New Zealand's privacy commissioner
#330Earlier quoted context omitted.
And "horrible fucked up shit" amounts to clicks. People don't stream Lawrence Welk for their modern entertainment needs. I say the company knows damn well what content it leaves untouched. It caters to enablers.
Well, to play devil's advocate to your point, it's barely Facebook's fault that the public has an appetite for such heinous material. People want to watch these things, why do we blame Facebook for that and not ourselves?
Social networks already make it harder to maintain these standards because they dissociate their subjects from one another. It's easier for me to send you a death threat if, to me, you're just a bunch of words I disagree with under a profile picture.
They also facilitate the mobilization of like-minded people at an awesome scale, however widely unaccepted their behavior is. If you can get your sense of social belonging satisfied by 100000 other pedophiles from all over the world on a social network, why should you conform to any widely recognized social standard? Why should you work on your problems when thousands of rape apologists are patting your back and reinforcing your delusions?
Finally, social networks exploit these weaknesses, exploit our sense of pride and our ideas of what is right and wrong. More polarized and controversial information leads to more discussion. More discussion leads to more social data. More social data leads to better ads. There is an incentive for social networks to push objectionable and worthless information. The relationship is perhaps indirect in that it just happens to be the best way to turn a profit, but we shouldn't let our social standards budge for a system that is designed to maximize a profit margin.