Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Amazon rainforest plots sold via Facebook Marketplace ads

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 106 posts

Re: Amazon rainforest plots sold via Facebook Marketplace ads

#51

Post by nindalf »

hetspookjee wrote: post #35
MattGaiser wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Selling children and guns (at least in most parts of the world) is just outright prohibited. Selling land isn't. You don't need to figure out whether it is an illegal or legal child sale as all child selling is illegal. Selling land in itself is not illegal.

Its outright prohibited to sell illegal land as well. Facebook might also require a proof of ownership before allowing the sale.

How do you verify proof of ownership? I have a “patta” indicating I own some land. There are only a few million people in the world who can even read the words on this document. There are only a few thousand who can understand the meaning behind those words. There are many a hundred who can verify if it’s a forgery or not. Meanwhile I doubt you can tell which part of the world it’s from based on just “patta” or looking at the document.

It’s strange that multiple people on this thread have gone with “prostitution, slavery, sales of firearms don’t happen on online marketplaces, why should this?” It’s so obvious - those are obviously illegal. Any reasonable human being taking a look at a gun sale post can tell that 1. It’s a gun and 2. Guns shouldn’t be sold here. It’s so obvious that it can be trivially automated too.

Please respond if you can verify pattas in a reasonable amount of time. Because boy do I have a business idea for you.

Re: Amazon rainforest plots sold via Facebook Marketplace ads

#52

Post by uhhhhhhhhhhhhhh »

erostrate wrote: post #50
foerbert wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you follow this line of thought, the conclusion seems to be that if Facebook were to run ads for illegal drugs, explosives, or humans, it would simply be an indication that some country should be enforcing it's laws better. And Facebook would be totally in clear to continue showing those ads. This seems obviously wrong.

If you take the opposite line, that Facebook is responsible for checking that the product is sold legally, then the conclusion is that Facebook would have to confirm legal ownership of every product before allowing a sale. This also seems wrong. The right solution is in the middle: Facebook should spend some effort validating the legality of the sale. The required standard of effort should depend on how much money Fa…

Yes I'd like one facebook becomes the government please.

Re: Amazon rainforest plots sold via Facebook Marketplace ads

#53

Post by brendoelfrendo »

MattGaiser wrote: post #18
Ansil849 wrote: post #13

> Facebook said it was "ready to work with local authorities", but indicated it would not take independent action of its own to halt the trade. Huh? If the ads were for firearms or child slaves, would Facebook's response also be that it was ready to work with local authorities, but would not take independent action? So how can Facebook take this kind of flippant approach to this, but not on other items? The, not even…

Selling children and guns (at least in most parts of the world) is just outright prohibited. Selling land isn't. You don't need to figure out whether it is an illegal or legal child sale as all child selling is illegal. Selling land in itself is not illegal.

What is "outright prohibited" depends entirely on jurisdiction (except maybe humans, pretty sure selling humans is banned everywhere). Person-to-person firearm sales aren't allowed on Facebook Marketplace[0] even though they are legal in much of the United States. I'm not sure why this is, but a few options come to mind... 1) it's hard to ensure that it's done legally, so Facebook doesn't even try; 2) they (the people who set policy) have some moral compunction that tells them not to; 3) firearm sales are had PR.

Their lack of action here doesn't tell me that they're in the right. It tells me that they 1) don't think this is a big enough problem to jeopardize revenue by restricting or increasing moderation for real estate listings and/or 2) they don't think they'll be held accountable, by the law or by consumers.

https://m.facebook.com/help/179037502478035?helpref=uf_perma...

Re: Amazon rainforest plots sold via Facebook Marketplace ads

#54

Post by foerbert »

MattGaiser wrote: post #24
foerbert wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you follow this line of thought, the conclusion seems to be that if Facebook were to run ads for illegal drugs, explosives, or humans, it would simply be an indication that some country should be enforcing it's laws better. And Facebook would be totally in clear to continue showing those ads. This seems obviously wrong.

Except it is outright illegal to sell drugs, explosives, or humans. Any ad selling those is almost certainly illegal. If humans for sale, post is illegal. It is not illegal to sell land. A moderator would need to delve into Brazilian law and mapping to determine if that specific sale was illegal.

Facebook has the resources and technical expertise to make quite a good pass at figuring this out. This is also unlikely to be the only situation of this sort that they will ever deal with, so the experience of addressing it should be of some value to them too. And this is the sort of technically challenging yet fun and impactful project that helps keep skilled engineered happy. My point here is simply that trying to solve this problem is not some huge net negative for Facebook.

They don't need to be perfect. A rough solution would not require a full and complete legal analysis of Brazil's laws and topography. However their current stance seems to be that they won't even bother trying.

Re: Amazon rainforest plots sold via Facebook Marketplace ads

#55

Post by dillondoyle »

MattGaiser wrote: post #24
foerbert wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you follow this line of thought, the conclusion seems to be that if Facebook were to run ads for illegal drugs, explosives, or humans, it would simply be an indication that some country should be enforcing it's laws better. And Facebook would be totally in clear to continue showing those ads. This seems obviously wrong.

Except it is outright illegal to sell drugs, explosives, or humans. Any ad selling those is almost certainly illegal. If humans for sale, post is illegal. It is not illegal to sell land. A moderator would need to delve into Brazilian law and mapping to determine if that specific sale was illegal.

Furthermore there are also specific laws against human trafficking and drugs online that seem to up the potential liability for those sales versus say facilitating a stolen iphone or in this case even less provable land sales.

Just a few first google hits: FOSTA/SESTA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Enabling_Sex_Traffickers_...

Prosecuting dark net markets using 'crack house law': https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=56...

Re: Amazon rainforest plots sold via Facebook Marketplace ads

#56

Post by anm89 »

I think this highlights how ridiculous it is to expect Facebook to enforce laws. For a given plot of land in the Amazon, how is Facebook going to know the title history of that land. If you have ever paid a title company in the US for a search you know that process takes weeks and theres a much better paper trail here then for some little plot the heart of the Amazon.

I'm guessing FB doesn't care either way and would be happy to comply to remove a listing once a Brazilian court determines that a sale is illegal but we don't want Facebook being a defacto Brazilian court.

Re: Amazon rainforest plots sold via Facebook Marketplace ads

#57

Post by hetspookjee »

nindalf wrote: post #51
hetspookjee wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its outright prohibited to sell illegal land as well. Facebook might also require a proof of ownership before allowing the sale.

How do you verify proof of ownership? I have a “patta” indicating I own some land. There are only a few million people in the world who can even read the words on this document. There are only a few thousand who can understand the meaning behind those words. There are many a hundred who can verify if it’s a forgery or not. Meanwhile I doubt you can tell which part of the world it’s from based on just “patta” or looki…

I see I'm in the wrong on the obviousness of the ownership of the land. I wish I had a good way to verify such things. But I don't and I am getting that no one really has. So, because it's so hard to verify, does that than mean that it's ok to sell? Given that Brazil doesn't have a clear way of proving ownership, and people are abusing this situation and, and Facebook is making a profit of this abuse, while it's clear they're incapable of validating their statements, than I think it's reasonable to shut this service down for plots of lands in Brazil. Until either Facebook steps up their game of validating, or Brazil has a better way of proving ownership so this abuse doesn't happen. But profiting and facilitating while dodging all the blame is too easy in my opinion.

Re: Amazon rainforest plots sold via Facebook Marketplace ads

#58

Post by foerbert »

erostrate wrote: post #50
foerbert wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you follow this line of thought, the conclusion seems to be that if Facebook were to run ads for illegal drugs, explosives, or humans, it would simply be an indication that some country should be enforcing it's laws better. And Facebook would be totally in clear to continue showing those ads. This seems obviously wrong.

If you take the opposite line, that Facebook is responsible for checking that the product is sold legally, then the conclusion is that Facebook would have to confirm legal ownership of every product before allowing a sale. This also seems wrong. The right solution is in the middle: Facebook should spend some effort validating the legality of the sale. The required standard of effort should depend on how much money Fa…

Largely I agree with you, though I don't think your calculation of effort is quite complete. One factor that should be considered is the harm done by allowing the ads.

Facilitating the sale of a stolen phone is not going to be as harmful as facilitating, say, adulterated nutrition supplements.

This dovetails nicely with the full-on terrible and illegal side of things. There are likely not many ads for human trafficking on Facebook, but they are so horrendous that it is still worth expending significant effort to detect and remove them.

And while not comparable to the above situation, I would argue illegal Amazon land deals ads are causing an outsized harm compared to ads for similarly mundane-sounding illegal goods/service/whatever. They deserve special attention.

Re: Amazon rainforest plots sold via Facebook Marketplace ads

#59

Post by LanceH »

foerbert wrote: post #20
barbacoa wrote: post #16

This is one of those rare times I agree with facebook. Why is this Facebook's problem? Sounds like Brazil should be enforcing their laws better. Facebook hosts for-sale postings, how reasonable is it for them to vet every post against scams and illegality?

If you follow this line of thought, the conclusion seems to be that if Facebook were to run ads for illegal drugs, explosives, or humans, it would simply be an indication that some country should be enforcing it's laws better. And Facebook would be totally in clear to continue showing those ads. This seems obviously wrong.

If the sale of land on Facebook is not legal, then the government shouldn't record the transfer of title.

Re: Amazon rainforest plots sold via Facebook Marketplace ads

#60

Post by tluyben2 »

MattGaiser wrote: post #24
foerbert wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you follow this line of thought, the conclusion seems to be that if Facebook were to run ads for illegal drugs, explosives, or humans, it would simply be an indication that some country should be enforcing it's laws better. And Facebook would be totally in clear to continue showing those ads. This seems obviously wrong.

Except it is outright illegal to sell drugs, explosives, or humans. Any ad selling those is almost certainly illegal. If humans for sale, post is illegal. It is not illegal to sell land. A moderator would need to delve into Brazilian law and mapping to determine if that specific sale was illegal.

Some drugs (medicine but also recreational) are legal in some countries to just buy anywhere and not in others, as are some type of explosives. Is Facebook banning those outright or actually checking per country what is allowed and what is not? It's a question, I do not use Facebook... If banned outright, is that not the same thing but the other way?
Post reply on HN