No thanks!
Facebook Pledges $130M to Fund “Supreme Court” for Content
11–20 of 158 posts
Re: Facebook Pledges $130M to Fund “Supreme Court” for Content
#12Are we supposed to believe that the people receiving the $130M will be somehow independent and make decisions without influence from Facebook? That doesn't sound very plausible.
Re: Facebook Pledges $130M to Fund “Supreme Court” for Content
#13The wolves voting for free range sheep.
Re: Facebook Pledges $130M to Fund “Supreme Court” for Content
#14They don't want to be held responsible for moderating content, so… they're creating an organization funded solely by themselves. How is that any different from just doing it in-house?
Re: Facebook Pledges $130M to Fund “Supreme Court” for Content
#15The forest was shrinking but the trees kept voting for the axe as its handle was made of wood and they thought it was one of them.
Re: Facebook Pledges $130M to Fund “Supreme Court” for Content
#16Are we supposed to believe that the people receiving the $130M will be somehow independent and make decisions without influence from Facebook? That doesn't sound very plausible.
> The money marks a significant investment in an organization that doesn’t yet exist, but could take on responsibility for some of the company’s thorniest decisions.
I hope what doesn't happen is that this turns into a way for Facebook to delay/confuse/distort how decisions are made, and ultimately give Facebook itself a way to shirk the blame.
Re: Facebook Pledges $130M to Fund “Supreme Court” for Content
#17They don't want to be held responsible for moderating content, so… they're creating an organization funded solely by themselves. How is that any different from just doing it in-house?
It worked well for the movie studios and MPAA. The MPAA ratings board has the veneer of being independent without actually being too independent.
Re: Facebook Pledges $130M to Fund “Supreme Court” for Content
#18They don't want to be held responsible for moderating content, so… they're creating an organization funded solely by themselves. How is that any different from just doing it in-house?
Because it lives outside of Facebook and can offer its services to other online communities. It's a smart play if your goal is to own governing worldwide speech.
Re: Facebook Pledges $130M to Fund “Supreme Court” for Content
#19"Supreme Court"..this sounds nothing like the Supreme Court.
Re: Facebook Pledges $130M to Fund “Supreme Court” for Content
#20Are we supposed to believe that the people receiving the $130M will be somehow independent and make decisions without influence from Facebook? That doesn't sound very plausible.
> The money marks a significant investment in an organization that doesn’t yet exist, but could take on responsibility for some of the company’s thorniest decisions. I hope what doesn't happen is that this turns into a way for Facebook to delay/confuse/distort how decisions are made, and ultimately give Facebook itself a way to shirk the blame.
That's exactly what this is. They're trying to avoid regulation of any kind, and "third party audits" are historically a good way to keep the federal government out of your hair for at least a measurable period of time. The financial industry learned this quickly.