11–20 of 97 posts
Frivolous lawsuit. Hope it fails.
Is it more of less frivolous than the time Facebook helped organise a genocide? https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-facebo...
I understand that HN has a massive hate boner for Facebook, but don't let it cloud your judgment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It resulted in death. That seems a key detail. Do you think that aspect matters? It was raised with them, they didn’t act and someone died. They have no responsibility for spreading death threats? If that content is ok, what content is not ok?
The article expressly states that violent content is not allowed and was actively policed. Facebook moderators are not fully omniscient and omnipresent. That is not grounds for a $2 billion lawsuit. That fact that people died is sad, but ultimately immaterial to the arguments here considered.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What about it is frivolous exactly?
A civil suit for $2 billion which alleges that Facebook's algorithm promoted popular posts with lots of engagement more than it promoted unpopular posts is frivolous and deserves to be tossed.
Facebook (and other "growth & engagement" platforms) currently want to have their cake and eat it too. They act as an editor, selectively promoting certain content that increases engagement and thus their bottom-line while not taking any of the liability. Newspapers can do this too (and to a certain extent, do) but are under strict regulation which limits the damage (yes, tabloids are a thing, but none of them would publish outright calls to violence and promote illegal activities, something very commonplace on Facebook because outrageous content generates more engagement).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It resulted in death. That seems a key detail. Do you think that aspect matters? It was raised with them, they didn’t act and someone died. They have no responsibility for spreading death threats? If that content is ok, what content is not ok?
The article expressly states that violent content is not allowed and was actively policed. Facebook moderators are not fully omniscient and omnipresent. That is not grounds for a $2 billion lawsuit. That fact that people died is sad, but ultimately immaterial to the arguments here considered.
> Eight days after the elder Amare was murdered, Facebook finally removed the post, according to the researcher.
Doesn't sound like they "actively policed" the content sufficiently.
Facebook caused the death of a man. If you think that Facebook did just because the posts were "popular". then Facebook caused the death of a man for money, and that makes it worse.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A civil suit for $2 billion which alleges that Facebook's algorithm promoted popular posts with lots of engagement more than it promoted unpopular posts is frivolous and deserves to be tossed.
It resulted in death. That seems a key detail. Do you think that aspect matters? It was raised with them, they didn’t act and someone died. They have no responsibility for spreading death threats? If that content is ok, what content is not ok?
How that was handled. Had they seen human review and wrongly rejected? Was it thrown up the chain and a VP said “fuck then skinnies!”? Was it just lost in a message queue?
All in all, this reminds me a bit of the old joke “The mail man is my drug dealer, and he doesn’t even know it.”
Well, if I mail a letter to the Post Master telling him my neighbor buys fentanyl via the post and he doesn’t read it in time, I can’t blame him for not getting to it… barring dereliction.
So, no, blanket hating FB here is just smooth-brain outrage culture.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The article expressly states that violent content is not allowed and was actively policed. Facebook moderators are not fully omniscient and omnipresent. That is not grounds for a $2 billion lawsuit. That fact that people died is sad, but ultimately immaterial to the arguments here considered.
> Abrham Amare, a researcher and son of chemistry professor Meareg Amare, said that his father was targeted by a series of threatening posts because he was ethnically Tigrayan. He reported the posts, some of them shared over 50,000 times, to Facebook because they contained his father's address and called for his death. > Eight days after the elder Amare was murdered, Facebook finally removed the post, according to th…
If an ethnic conflict occurs in a relatively obscure region are they going to spin up new moderators on the AWS spot market?
These things aren’t perfect or fast.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It resulted in death. That seems a key detail. Do you think that aspect matters? It was raised with them, they didn’t act and someone died. They have no responsibility for spreading death threats? If that content is ok, what content is not ok?
The article expressly states that violent content is not allowed and was actively policed. Facebook moderators are not fully omniscient and omnipresent. That is not grounds for a $2 billion lawsuit. That fact that people died is sad, but ultimately immaterial to the arguments here considered.
The same is true for venues, sports, shops, workplaces, etc... why not software companies?
Frivolous lawsuit. Hope it fails.