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

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

#51

Post by m12k » Thu, Dec 12, 2019, 5:57 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 can sympathize with that feeling, but you sort of are in a "Damned if you do/Damned if you don't" situation. No one is expecting the wolf to stop eating sheep, and as admirable as its proposal to fund a shepherd might be, we would be negligent if we didn't doubt its sincerity.

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

#52

Post by Animats » Thu, Dec 12, 2019, 5:57 PM UTC

This sounds like the Hays Office.[1] That was the Motion Picture Association of America's censorship unit from 1934 to 1968.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Picture_Production_Code

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

#53

Post by floatingatoll » Thu, Dec 12, 2019, 5:57 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 content reviewers be employed (not contracted!) by this third-party organization with independent editorial control over the content they're reviewing, using this "Supreme Court" to ensure that their editorial decisions are just and sound, and to provide Facebook a forum to request changes in editorial policy without the implied "do whatever we say or else we'll fire you and replace you, you cogs" that the reviewers suffer under today.

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

#54

Post by deusofnull » Thu, Dec 12, 2019, 5:58 PM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #30

deusofnull wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

from the article, > While Facebook will select the first 11 members of the board, the eleven will choose the remaining board members, with terms lasting three years. facebook picks the first 11 board members and then those 11 staff new appointments for 3 year terms, but not sure if the first 11 also control staffing throughout the org. if this is a "facebook supreme court" then its kinda fishy if the stakeholders get…

> its kinda fishy if the stakeholders get to appoint the first 11 judges So it's a Facebook-controlled board. An honest mechanism would involve outside groups from the start. A legitimate mechanism probably requires the government to step in. This is simply a deflection mechanism, a board for PR. > if you use numerals (11) in a piece of writing, dont switch to the written number (eleven) This is common style advice.…

Frankly i agree about gov intervention in such matters because how can you really, honestly take a company at its word that its self-appointed accountability board is actually independent? Or has power to make decisions that would hurt Facebook. And companies shouldnt really be expected to do that, or at least we shouldnt expect that over a government solution. Something like this is exaccccctly what governments is designed to handle vs what business can be expected to do on its own.

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

#55

Post by unearthed » Thu, Dec 12, 2019, 6:01 PM UTC

sdenton4 wrote: post #50

unearthed wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'…

You're denying the existence of a problem, not offering a solution. Implicitly, this says that you don't value the opinions of people who very strongly believe that there is a problem. It's not a great place to argue from.

> You're denying the existence of a problem, not offering a solution

Incorrect. Im saying the solution IS NOT the dogmatic oversight that facebook is pursuing here.

Instead the solution is: "The droves of people using facebook are sufficiently large that an organic zeitgeist can emerge without interference"

Surely You're NOT suggesting:

"Yes we require the dogmatic, bureaucratic, oversight of speech to create harmony"

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

#56

Post by ohithereyou » Thu, Dec 12, 2019, 6:02 PM UTC

lonelappde wrote: post #35

ohithereyou wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It is likely that an organization like this will become a defacto standard used by all big social networks as a way to get government off their back, much like the Hayes Code and then the MPAA ratings board by the movie industry.

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

#57

Post by chapium » Thu, Dec 12, 2019, 6:03 PM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #40

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.)

I have no obligation to use any of these services, why do they need to be broken up? Google is a far more threatening power over my day to day activities.

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

#58

Post by kick » Thu, Dec 12, 2019, 6:03 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.

For anyone curious, this is the same Pesenti as the one that founded Vivisimo.

Some of the people replying to you are a bit...ich, but:

Why not give the funds to someone battle-tested and with a good reputation like John Gilmore to distribute for the purpose? Something can't be independent with as much Facebook control over it as the post implies.

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

#59

Post by rayiner » Thu, Dec 12, 2019, 6:04 PM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #40

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.)

I disagree strongly with closing off an entire sector of content to political advertising. It seems like the goal, or at least the unintentional effect, is to reinforce the traditional media’s monopoly on political discourse.

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

#60

Post by 0x445442 » Thu, Dec 12, 2019, 6:05 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 suggest a better alternative?

Yes, quit attempting to police speech.