Facebook Pledges $130M to Fund “Supreme Court” for Content • Hacker News Board

Re: Facebook Pledges $130M to Fund “Supreme Court” for Content

#31

Post by ceejayoz » Thu, Dec 12, 2019, 5:46 PM UTC

Ajedi32 wrote: post #27

This actually does feel like a step in the right direction. Having _any_ sort of appeals process in place is definitely a step up from the Google/YouTube approach of: you can be banned by an automated process for no apparent reason and if that happens there's absolutely nothing you can do about it except raise a stink on social media and hope your story gets enough traction that someone capable of doing something abo…

Facebook already has an appeals process for content. This just adds another level, and I'm fairly dubious it'd be any less capricious.

Re: Facebook Pledges $130M to Fund “Supreme Court” for Content

#32

Post by knzhou » Thu, Dec 12, 2019, 5:46 PM UTC

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Re: Facebook Pledges $130M to Fund “Supreme Court” for Content

#33

Post by JumpCrisscross » Thu, Dec 12, 2019, 5:46 PM UTC

rvz wrote: post #29

The millisecond I clicked on this article, the first sentence looks very strange: > Facebook Inc. will pay $130 million to establish an independent board charged with reviewing how the company moderates its content... First of all, isn't it ironic that the owner of the largest social networks in the world is attempting to fund a independent court / board for content with Facebook money? If they're not the only ones b…

> a independent court

Facebook picks board members who then pick more board members. The sole financial backer is Facebook. At a whim, Mark Zuckerberg could ignore, re-constitute or disband the board.

It's far from independent.

Re: Facebook Pledges $130M to Fund “Supreme Court” for Content

#34

Post by annoyingnoob » Thu, Dec 12, 2019, 5:46 PM UTC

pesenti wrote: post #23

Hey I am a Facebook employee and I am really confused by all the comments here. Really feels like a "Damned if you do/Damned if you don't" situation. Can anybody actually suggest a better alternative? Not saying there isn't one, I am just not seeing one being proposed.

My solution is do not use Facebook.

Re: Facebook Pledges $130M to Fund “Supreme Court” for Content

#35

Post by lonelappde » Thu, Dec 12, 2019, 5:47 PM UTC

ohithereyou wrote: post #17

jakelazaroff wrote: post #14

They 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.

The MPAA is an Association. It's a small government for studios. It's not intended to be independent, it's intended to balance power along its members. If there was only one studio it could do ratings in-house.

Re: Facebook Pledges $130M to Fund “Supreme Court” for Content

#36

Post by bananocurrency » Thu, Dec 12, 2019, 5:47 PM UTC

pesenti wrote: post #23

Hey I am a Facebook employee and I am really confused by all the comments here. Really feels like a "Damned if you do/Damned if you don't" situation. Can anybody actually suggest a better alternative? Not saying there isn't one, I am just not seeing one being proposed.

Have you tried not being a total sellout and working for an advertising company?

Re: Facebook Pledges $130M to Fund “Supreme Court” for Content

#37

Post by burkaman » Thu, Dec 12, 2019, 5:48 PM UTC

pesenti wrote: post #23

Hey I am a Facebook employee and I am really confused by all the comments here. Really feels like a "Damned if you do/Damned if you don't" situation. Can anybody actually suggest a better alternative? Not saying there isn't one, I am just not seeing one being proposed.

I would prefer that Facebook lose enough power and influence that this is no longer necessary, probably by being broken up.

Re: Facebook Pledges $130M to Fund “Supreme Court” for Content

#38

Post by lightbyte » Thu, Dec 12, 2019, 5:49 PM UTC

ceejayoz wrote: post #9

DenverR wrote: post #4

Why does facebook continue to allow the running of political ads and all the headache that comes with it (despite it being a minuscule piece of it's overall revenue)? Power. You can see this as being the most tone-deaf way possible to address the problem, or as a power grab to become an arbiter of truth.

The right-wing has been claiming anti-conservative bias in big tech for a while now. Banning political ads, even if done across the board, would be likely to ramp that up dramatically. https://www.theverge.com/2019/8/6/20756734/trump-google-anti... For example: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/republicans-criticize-goog... > President Donald Trump’s reelection campaign and other Republican election groups criticized…

[flagged]

Re: Facebook Pledges $130M to Fund “Supreme Court” for Content

#39

Post by unearthed » Thu, Dec 12, 2019, 5:49 PM UTC

pesenti wrote: post #23

Hey I am a Facebook employee and I am really confused by all the comments here. Really feels like a "Damned if you do/Damned if you don't" situation. Can anybody actually suggest a better alternative? Not saying there isn't one, I am just not seeing one being proposed.

Yes. Realize that FB is the defacto platform for social discussion and realize that discussion at this scale is the singular path towards cohesive integration of multi-culture societies.

Stop policing speech/thoughts/ideas/communication.

Nobody has asked facebook to be the arbiter of social-morality.

You at facebook are creating an echo chamber and driving dissenting voices away because they dont adhere to the 'woke' dogma.

You're taking all the monstrous ideas and pushing them outside. You're giving them no option but to aggregate + further radicalize each other.

This is why shit like 8chan has gotten so wretched.

Theres already WAY too much involvement + dogmatic oversight of 'moral right' by facebook.

Stop doing what you're doing and accept that if you're ACTUALLY interested in the mass-culture integration you claim you're working towards, banning + policing thoughts aren't the way towards that ends.

What actually needs to happen is for the bad to be extrema to be buffered though interaction w the socially normal beliefs.

What facebook is CURRENTLY doing is radicalizing groups.

Somehow zuck cant see this as the repressive puritanical system that it is.

Re: Facebook Pledges $130M to Fund “Supreme Court” for Content

#40

Post by JumpCrisscross » Thu, Dec 12, 2019, 5:50 PM UTC

pesenti wrote: post #23

Hey I am a Facebook employee and I am really confused by all the comments here. Really feels like a "Damned if you do/Damned if you don't" situation. Can anybody actually suggest a better alternative? Not saying there isn't one, I am just not seeing one being proposed.

> Can anybody actually suggest a better alternative?

Ban non-geographically targeted political ads. Create a public repository of all political ads.

Creating a puppet entity and calling it a court is dishonest and insulting.

(The only proper solution, of course, is breaking up Facebook into, at the very least, Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp. Concentrated market power is the fundamental problem.)