171–180 of 353 posts
Why is a random Twitter rant on the front page of hacker news? Also re: Jew haters, he does realize that the top two people at Facebook are Jewish, right? (Mark and Sheryl)
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What makes you say it's an easy problem? They were able to block 1.2 million copycat videos of the shooting, but 0.3 million still got through. YouTube also struggled to remove them and even went so far to disable uploads entirely for a period because their AI was insufficient. The difference is they just declined to release specific numbers so they took less flack. When you literally have thousands of humans all det…
Facebook (and Google and others) can easily identify themes in natural language both written and spoken. They're really good at those problems because they're used as inputs for ad sales. Identifying themes in video is harder than natural language. But fundamentally it requires the same kind of ML tools as natural language, which these companies have already mastered. I think the bigger issue is that Facebook doesn't…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why are you implying that Facebook isn't actively moderating their platforms or that governments would be able to do a better job? Facebook has hired thousands of human moderators in the past few years, significantly more than Google and Twitter. They've also invested significantly in improving their AI detection systems. That doesn't mean there isn't work to do still, but you're insinuating that they aren't actively…
> Furthermore, the idea that harsh penalties and regulations are going to prevent psychopaths from broadcasting their killing spree is ridiculous Nobody is broadcasting in TV or newspapers - they are actually liable for content that gets published on those platforms. Maybe we finally remove exception for internet?
All of this still happens today. Just two weeks ago I read an article in the NYTimes reporting on how NZ's prime minister asked people not to use or spread the shooter's name. In the same article NYTimes revealed it multiple times. The only frames from the video I've seen are the ones the Washington Post used--The shooters face blown up as the huge cover photo for the story. It just happens that now the internet is the biggest publication platform instead of television or print, so it naturally attracts psychopaths that are seeking the greatest impact.
The reality is that none of these publishing platforms are held liable and the media and HN don't want the internet to be held liable, either--they want FB to be held liable because they don't like FB. No one here is screaming for YouTube's heads after they failed to prevent millions of copies of the videos from being uploaded in the immediate aftermath of the shooting.
"[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…
This is because somehow as a society we decided that child porn is so bad, that there are no excuses to providing any resources for it.
All companies need to make sure that no child porn is posted on their sites, or if it is, then it's taken down immediately and reported to the proper authorities. Failure to do that will get sites blocked by their ISPs, or any of their tech providers if they detect it first (which usually happens within hours or even minutes).
Politics aside, technically, all large enough sites (which allow users to post content) already have the resources and processes in place to monitor and filter all their content. And they are making a conscious decision about what they filter.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why are you implying that Facebook isn't actively moderating their platforms or that governments would be able to do a better job? Facebook has hired thousands of human moderators in the past few years, significantly more than Google and Twitter. They've also invested significantly in improving their AI detection systems. That doesn't mean there isn't work to do still, but you're insinuating that they aren't actively…
> Furthermore, the idea that harsh penalties and regulations are going to prevent psychopaths from broadcasting their killing spree is ridiculous Nobody is broadcasting in TV or newspapers - they are actually liable for content that gets published on those platforms. Maybe we finally remove exception for internet?
Same as TV and newspapers; you don't sue Comcast or the guy who installed your satellite dish, you sue the TV station; You don't sue the paper boy, you sue the news paper.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you don't have the ability to control your premises, or employ enough security, perhaps you should not be permitted to operate those premises. Unsafe clubs get closed down. They - or any other social media company - don't have a right to exist. If societies around the world conclude they do more harm than good as they currently operate, it's perfectly reasonable to require them to moderate adequately. If they cann…
If you don't have the ability to control your premises, or employ enough security, perhaps you should not be permitted to operate those premises. So we should shut down the mosques in New Zealand because they didn't control their premises and keep the shooter out? Should we shut down banks because they didn't have enough security to keep a bank robber out? You are shifting the blame away from the perpetrator. Every c…
A better question would be, should a bank be held liable after being robbed if it failed its duties by designing cheap systems to save money — yes. Should a mosque/church be held liable if they received a threat and they ignored causing large loss of life — yes.
Facebook is culpable. They know the kind of garbage that floats in their platform. They continue to develop their platform and they continue to improve their ad systems. Why won’t they dedicate as much engineering effort to gain an advantage on racism/hate speech/fascism? I’ll tell you why.
Because Zuckerberg simply does not care. He owns the platform that dominates information flows and public discourse. Why would he undermine that?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Facebook has no clue what kind of stuff gets posted on their platform Of course they do. People report. And in my personal experience, Facebook always(!) replies "not against community standards", even when clear-cut crimes like rape threats.
Consider who the person is reviewing these things. Imagine all the horrible fucked up shit they see on a daily basis. I wouldn't be surprised if after seeing videos of babies being killed, people being beheaded and hung, that some sperm yelling at women might not even register to them as a bad thing.
"[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…
Whether you look at Google or Facebook, you can notice that these platforms have been highly optimized to produce and stimulate user experiences that are far from sensible or pleasant.
The main product for both companies are ads. One uses massive distribution channel in terms of free internet search the other one in terms of free content. There is a sensible way to balance the delivery of the product (unlike other products like bread or transport, this one is in most cases an unwanted one - close to 1B ad blockers have been deployed on devices world wide) that assumes certain profit-negating levers to be pulled. Control of these levers is in full control of these companies.
By choosing not to pull the lever these companies have created an environment in which common intelligence is insulted every day, and because this has gradually happened over a period of many years, we've grown oblivious to it for the most part.
FB could (theoretically) hire 1 million workers to curate the platform at $50k/year.
Either Zuckerberg don’t want to move a finger, or he simply want regulators to regulate Facebook and other social media to create a higher barrier of entry into the social media market.