Apple threatened Facebook ban over slavery posts on Instagram(bbc.co.uk)
bbc.co.uk
Apple threatened Facebook ban over slavery posts on Instagram
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-58645547
332 comments
> Human trafficking is rife on Facebook
Even looking at HN’s reaction, which has a strong component rationalising for Facebook, it’s unsurprising that Facebook is itself divided on its responsibility to moderate. Even when we get to literal slavery.
A risk from this is contagion. The fish rots from the head down. But it’s been rotting for some time. Those people will, after Facebook, move on to other roles of influence.
Even looking at HN’s reaction, which has a strong component rationalising for Facebook, it’s unsurprising that Facebook is itself divided on its responsibility to moderate. Even when we get to literal slavery.
A risk from this is contagion. The fish rots from the head down. But it’s been rotting for some time. Those people will, after Facebook, move on to other roles of influence.
What amazes me is that we know HN is full of FB employees/devs.
How can someone work for a company that has such a history of doing or allowing dirty deeds, often suppressing the evidence.
Starting from the very top of Facebook, it is a completely amoral company.
Google, on the other hand, is just moreso just naive and seems to believe it can solve problems with AI, without human judgment or oversight.
How can someone work for a company that has such a history of doing or allowing dirty deeds, often suppressing the evidence.
Starting from the very top of Facebook, it is a completely amoral company.
Google, on the other hand, is just moreso just naive and seems to believe it can solve problems with AI, without human judgment or oversight.
I don't work at FB (or Google), but this take seems naive. People simply don't have the ability to spend so much time dealing with what they probably consider fringe violations of morality. In their hierarchy of needs, this just doesn't rank very highly.
Its reminiscent of people who believe the US is fundamentally evil and the people who live in and vote in the country are complicit. The atrocities of the US far outweigh those that FB has done. If these people are OK being US citizens, being employees of FB seems like nothing.
And you extend this to being members of the military, the police, etc...
Its reminiscent of people who believe the US is fundamentally evil and the people who live in and vote in the country are complicit. The atrocities of the US far outweigh those that FB has done. If these people are OK being US citizens, being employees of FB seems like nothing.
And you extend this to being members of the military, the police, etc...
If one is born in the US, it's quite difficult to leave. Even if you leave, it's a long process to become a citizen elsewhere and give up your US citizenship.
But one who chooses to work at Facebook (and reads HN) must know what goes on there; and they could choose a different, more ethical company.
The police provide necessary services. Facebook does not provide a necessary service. Some would argue that they prevent other, better services from existing because of their critical mass and financial means. So while plenty of bad things are done by some police, the service has value. Ethics aside, the value of Facebook is very marginal based on many studies.
But one who chooses to work at Facebook (and reads HN) must know what goes on there; and they could choose a different, more ethical company.
The police provide necessary services. Facebook does not provide a necessary service. Some would argue that they prevent other, better services from existing because of their critical mass and financial means. So while plenty of bad things are done by some police, the service has value. Ethics aside, the value of Facebook is very marginal based on many studies.
> If one is born in the US, it's quite difficult to leave. Even if you leave, it's a long process to become a citizen elsewhere and give up your US citizenship.
If you ever vote for a mainstream candidate, this line of argument falls flat. You are now participating in the process and actively supporting someone who is actually making the bad stuff happen.
If you ever vote for a mainstream candidate, this line of argument falls flat. You are now participating in the process and actively supporting someone who is actually making the bad stuff happen.
It's not quite difficult to leave. It's actually very easy. The process of getting citizenship elsewhere can take a while. But if you leave and renounce US citizenship, there are many countries that will allow you to stay until you get citizenship there.
Arguing against the value of FB is tough, given how much money it makes. In some sense, our society has determined that the BEST way to measure value is by how much money can it generate. By this measure FB has a lot of value.
You personally may not like FB. But my point is that there are a probably a lot of things that you hold dear (or at least don't find overly offensive) that others consider to do FAR more harm than FB ever has.
Arguing against the value of FB is tough, given how much money it makes. In some sense, our society has determined that the BEST way to measure value is by how much money can it generate. By this measure FB has a lot of value.
You personally may not like FB. But my point is that there are a probably a lot of things that you hold dear (or at least don't find overly offensive) that others consider to do FAR more harm than FB ever has.
This is now off-topic, but ...
> It's not quite difficult to leave. It's actually very easy. The process of getting citizenship elsewhere can take a while. But if you leave and renounce US citizenship, there are many countries that will allow you to stay until you get citizenship there.
With a US passport, you can go many places and stay for a short time. You cannot, however, stay indefinitely. If you try, you will face many obstacles and quite possibly fail and be ejected.
Also, renouncing US citizenship is not like sending a letter or walking into an embassy and handing your passport back. There's an interview process and some financial preparation required.
Lastly, even if you did renounce, and you're somehow allowed to live in another country while you go through the (lengthy) process to get a new passport, you are now stuck in that one place. You cannot go anywhere. This is certainly not something you would do unless you were really desperate.
> It's not quite difficult to leave. It's actually very easy. The process of getting citizenship elsewhere can take a while. But if you leave and renounce US citizenship, there are many countries that will allow you to stay until you get citizenship there.
I was speaking of value to humanity, not value to FB execs and investors. This is not a money matter.
Finally, pointing out other bad things does not make this a not-bad thing. By this logic, you could excuse anything because you could always point to something worse.
> It's not quite difficult to leave. It's actually very easy. The process of getting citizenship elsewhere can take a while. But if you leave and renounce US citizenship, there are many countries that will allow you to stay until you get citizenship there.
With a US passport, you can go many places and stay for a short time. You cannot, however, stay indefinitely. If you try, you will face many obstacles and quite possibly fail and be ejected.
Also, renouncing US citizenship is not like sending a letter or walking into an embassy and handing your passport back. There's an interview process and some financial preparation required.
Lastly, even if you did renounce, and you're somehow allowed to live in another country while you go through the (lengthy) process to get a new passport, you are now stuck in that one place. You cannot go anywhere. This is certainly not something you would do unless you were really desperate.
> It's not quite difficult to leave. It's actually very easy. The process of getting citizenship elsewhere can take a while. But if you leave and renounce US citizenship, there are many countries that will allow you to stay until you get citizenship there.
I was speaking of value to humanity, not value to FB execs and investors. This is not a money matter.
Finally, pointing out other bad things does not make this a not-bad thing. By this logic, you could excuse anything because you could always point to something worse.
> This is certainly not something you would do unless you were really desperate.
This is aligned with your position on value to humanity. If you believe that the US is the greatest force against humanity in the modern world (which a lot of people do believe) then not being a part of it is extremely prudent. That inconvenience associated with not being able to visit other countries pales in comparison to being part of the evil which is the US (if this is what you believe).
> Finally, pointing out other bad things does not make this a not-bad thing.
It's all relative. If on the list of bad things in the world, I have FB below about 20 other things I have yet to act on -- and FB is paying the rent and my kids college then why should I act on that (as you point out with the police, there is some value to their service -- if I were employed by FB, they also provide value directly to me)?
Others may have a list of things that rate worse against humanity than FB (but we still "participate in them") such as the crimes committed by the US govt, abortions, police abuse, the prison industrial complex, my cheating best friend, regulatory capture in pharma, allowing animals to be imprisoned and killed for meat, our overreliance on plastics, etc... There's a lot of problems in the world that harm humanity. FB just simply isn't high on most people's list. I'm not saying it isn't high on yours. In which case, you definitely shouldn't work there or use it. I'm just trying to prepare you for the fact that most people, myself included, just don't rank this very highly. And I certainly don't hold it against people that work there -- except for maybe Mark himself.
This is aligned with your position on value to humanity. If you believe that the US is the greatest force against humanity in the modern world (which a lot of people do believe) then not being a part of it is extremely prudent. That inconvenience associated with not being able to visit other countries pales in comparison to being part of the evil which is the US (if this is what you believe).
> Finally, pointing out other bad things does not make this a not-bad thing.
It's all relative. If on the list of bad things in the world, I have FB below about 20 other things I have yet to act on -- and FB is paying the rent and my kids college then why should I act on that (as you point out with the police, there is some value to their service -- if I were employed by FB, they also provide value directly to me)?
Others may have a list of things that rate worse against humanity than FB (but we still "participate in them") such as the crimes committed by the US govt, abortions, police abuse, the prison industrial complex, my cheating best friend, regulatory capture in pharma, allowing animals to be imprisoned and killed for meat, our overreliance on plastics, etc... There's a lot of problems in the world that harm humanity. FB just simply isn't high on most people's list. I'm not saying it isn't high on yours. In which case, you definitely shouldn't work there or use it. I'm just trying to prepare you for the fact that most people, myself included, just don't rank this very highly. And I certainly don't hold it against people that work there -- except for maybe Mark himself.
It's not clear to me that Facebook is acting unethically. They provide a communications platform, and communications platforms are always used unethically.
This is true of the telephone. Of the newspaper. Of text messages. Of telegram services. Of video chat. Of magazines. Of public meeting areas like park benches.
Every single one of these platforms have been used for human trafficking and other illegal behavior. It's ubiquitous, always has been, and always will be because the communications on a system are reflective of the humans using them.
The subjective question is whether Facebook puts enough effort into policing their platforms, and it's the exact same question posed (for example) to a city regarding the policing of solicitation in public parks. There will always be people unhappy with the level of enforcement in a common platform. It's reasonable to ask for more enforcement, but I cannot see a compelling argument that Facebook's communications platform is somehow less ethical than any other.
This is true of the telephone. Of the newspaper. Of text messages. Of telegram services. Of video chat. Of magazines. Of public meeting areas like park benches.
Every single one of these platforms have been used for human trafficking and other illegal behavior. It's ubiquitous, always has been, and always will be because the communications on a system are reflective of the humans using them.
The subjective question is whether Facebook puts enough effort into policing their platforms, and it's the exact same question posed (for example) to a city regarding the policing of solicitation in public parks. There will always be people unhappy with the level of enforcement in a common platform. It's reasonable to ask for more enforcement, but I cannot see a compelling argument that Facebook's communications platform is somehow less ethical than any other.
The mistrust in Facebook's self-policing comes from the times they have buried internal studies which show that they're doing a poor job, or from intentionally making it difficult for outsiders to illustrate that they're doing a bad job.
It's one thing to say, "this is hard and we're not good at it yet". It's another to hide evidence and pretend to be doing a good job, especially when you're talking about human lives.
It's one thing to say, "this is hard and we're not good at it yet". It's another to hide evidence and pretend to be doing a good job, especially when you're talking about human lives.
Again, Facebook seems to be generally operating within the status quo. It is typical for companies to hide embarrassing internal studies. Are you able to point out a large telecommunications or tech company which hasn't shown similar behavior?
And again, just because other companies do bad things doesn't mean it's ok.
Also, most of these other companies exist because they provide a real, needed service to people. Facebook creates the need (artificial) for the services they provide.
Also, most of these other companies exist because they provide a real, needed service to people. Facebook creates the need (artificial) for the services they provide.
Well, that simply isn't true. Facebook's communications platform is as real as any other communications platform.
I think you're confusing carte-blanche acceptance (which I haven't suggested) with considering the relative weight of your suggested ethical issue.
Have you called for people to quit working for ATT? For Google? Are there any telecom or software companies you don't think people should refuse to work for?
I think you're confusing carte-blanche acceptance (which I haven't suggested) with considering the relative weight of your suggested ethical issue.
Have you called for people to quit working for ATT? For Google? Are there any telecom or software companies you don't think people should refuse to work for?
FB is a communication platform and a publisher, depending on what is more convenient for them. They police speech but then in more important things is clear that they are doing a very bad job. You can argue that any company at the end try to maximize profits but FB has a long history to be misleading an manipulating to avoid do what they should do while keep milking their cash cow.
I don't think blaming employees is the right thing here. These are hard problems to solve, and unless we have evidence that Facebook encourages, or does not try to ban content like this it's probably a strech to call them immoral.
We are just beginning to understand the ill effects of social media, and these companies themselves acknowledge it. Plenty of people at these companies are working to solve these problems.
What is indeed a wrongdoing of last decade of companies is the growth at all costs mindset which leads to weird engagement hacks (like LinkedIn sending you an email notification for a message but now showing the message content in email), which many times lead them to take decisions that are not at the best interest of consumer. I guess all ad supported VC businesses are bound to have this fate, though.
We are just beginning to understand the ill effects of social media, and these companies themselves acknowledge it. Plenty of people at these companies are working to solve these problems.
What is indeed a wrongdoing of last decade of companies is the growth at all costs mindset which leads to weird engagement hacks (like LinkedIn sending you an email notification for a message but now showing the message content in email), which many times lead them to take decisions that are not at the best interest of consumer. I guess all ad supported VC businesses are bound to have this fate, though.
> evidence...does not try to ban content like this
What would you call Apple pointing it out and Facebook continuing to monetize until Apple threatened to ban them from he App Store?
> What is indeed a wrongdoing of last decade of companies is the growth at all costs mindset which leads to weird engagement hacks (like LinkedIn sending you an email notification for a message but now showing the message content in email)
Are we really comparing the selling of ads for slavery with LinkedIn requiring clickthrough for their messages?
What would you call Apple pointing it out and Facebook continuing to monetize until Apple threatened to ban them from he App Store?
> What is indeed a wrongdoing of last decade of companies is the growth at all costs mindset which leads to weird engagement hacks (like LinkedIn sending you an email notification for a message but now showing the message content in email)
Are we really comparing the selling of ads for slavery with LinkedIn requiring clickthrough for their messages?
It's dilution of responsibility. "Oh, I only work on optimizing page load times or other random feature, I can't be responsible for human trafficking!"
Well... you [FB employees] kind of are.
Well... you [FB employees] kind of are.
Learn nuance and complexity.
Nothing and no one is pure evil or pure good. Everything is complex. You may call some Facebook actions evil, but that does not mean there is also good in Facebook. For example, plenty of people meet their significant others on Facebook or reconnect with estranged family and friends.
Nothing and no one is pure evil or pure good. Everything is complex. You may call some Facebook actions evil, but that does not mean there is also good in Facebook. For example, plenty of people meet their significant others on Facebook or reconnect with estranged family and friends.
What about the actual human traffickers? Aren't they most responsible?
What have you done to stop facebook?
What have you done to stop facebook?
The human trafficers, in some cases, are just simply ignorant. Some are intentionally malicious, but some are just born into a way of thinking and operating (which is often supported by their society and government). They can, in theory, learn that what they are doing is arguably very wrong. And some can decide to stop doing that.
Meanwhile, we can make it less easy for them to do it by eliminating as many of the tools they use as possible.
As for stopping Facebook, I don't know if anyone can. The most we can do is stop using it. Like some people, I maintain an account out of necessity for the unfortunate times that the only way I can find or communicate with a business or person is on that platform. But my account can go months without me logging in.
If I were 20 years younger, I would be working on one of the open source community platforms or communication platforms in the hope of someday providing a an easy to use and ubiquitous product that would give normal people an alternative to FB. Maybe I still will now that I have quit my job.
Meanwhile, we can make it less easy for them to do it by eliminating as many of the tools they use as possible.
As for stopping Facebook, I don't know if anyone can. The most we can do is stop using it. Like some people, I maintain an account out of necessity for the unfortunate times that the only way I can find or communicate with a business or person is on that platform. But my account can go months without me logging in.
If I were 20 years younger, I would be working on one of the open source community platforms or communication platforms in the hope of someday providing a an easy to use and ubiquitous product that would give normal people an alternative to FB. Maybe I still will now that I have quit my job.
Are they though? it's not as if an average FB employee can do anything about it.
Say they resign... then FB just gets someone else to do their job.
Say they resign... then FB just gets someone else to do their job.
The argument "if I don't do it, someone else will" is not effective. Sure, someone else just might. But it doesn't have to be you (the theoretical FB employee). You can take your talent and brainpower elsewhere, especially if you're good enough to get hired by FB.
Your judgements and decisions how others should make career choices are entertaining.
[deleted]
it's a huge company. not every single project is intrinsically evil (eg, there are lots of FB employees that just work on open source projects). the ones that are might be parceled out in a way that makes their impact non-obvious.
I can't think of another large tech company with such a terrible public image, but if they wanted to pay me lots of money to work on some open source project that was important to me, I'm not sure I would say no.
I can't think of another large tech company with such a terrible public image, but if they wanted to pay me lots of money to work on some open source project that was important to me, I'm not sure I would say no.
> "it's a huge company. not every single project is intrinsically evil (eg, there are lots of FB employees that just work on open source projects)."
Indeed. I would be very curious how many of the righteous in this thread are busy removing React from their web applications? Relay from their GraphQL API's? PyTorch from their data science projects? RocksDB from the endless number of infrastructure products that incorporate it?
How do you hold that developer responsible for human slavery due to his or her work, while you and your shop continue happily exploiting that work yourselves?
Indeed. I would be very curious how many of the righteous in this thread are busy removing React from their web applications? Relay from their GraphQL API's? PyTorch from their data science projects? RocksDB from the endless number of infrastructure products that incorporate it?
How do you hold that developer responsible for human slavery due to his or her work, while you and your shop continue happily exploiting that work yourselves?
>It's a huge company. not every single project is intrinsically evil (eg, there are lots of FB employees that just work on open source projects). the ones that are might be parceled out in a way that makes their impact non-obvious.
It's not so much that they are evil, it is that FB is optimising for FB's profits, which may conflict with other things that other people value,
> I can't think of another large tech company with such a terrible public image
Uber is close, if not exceeding FB.
I also get the impression that people are a good deal more cynical and hostile towards Google and Apple now than they were 10 years ago (I know I am).
It's not so much that they are evil, it is that FB is optimising for FB's profits, which may conflict with other things that other people value,
> I can't think of another large tech company with such a terrible public image
Uber is close, if not exceeding FB.
I also get the impression that people are a good deal more cynical and hostile towards Google and Apple now than they were 10 years ago (I know I am).
Google gets trashed on because it was so bold about "do no evil" for so long, and because it keeps wrongly shutting down people's accounts. Oh, and because of its handling of internal sexual harassment and ethics complaints.
Uber took advantage of drivers, misleading them about income and viability of making a good living. They also aggressively ignored local regulations to be able to unfairly compete with local services. As bad as that is, it's still many steps above knowingly facilitating human trafficing.
Apple, for its many flaws, seems only to be semi-evil by probably knowingly allowing really bad labor practices at its Chinese factories. They either were knowingly failing to properly oversee, or they were intentionally ignoring. But it seems they have made an effort to improve in this regard.
Uber took advantage of drivers, misleading them about income and viability of making a good living. They also aggressively ignored local regulations to be able to unfairly compete with local services. As bad as that is, it's still many steps above knowingly facilitating human trafficing.
Apple, for its many flaws, seems only to be semi-evil by probably knowingly allowing really bad labor practices at its Chinese factories. They either were knowingly failing to properly oversee, or they were intentionally ignoring. But it seems they have made an effort to improve in this regard.
Okay, but how far down the stack does it go? If you are working at Cisco, should you be similarly horrified that human trafficking is being arranged using your company's routers? If you work at a Tier 1 Internet carrier, should you be horrified that people are arranging human trafficking over the backbone that you run?
(Even if Facebook is more responsible than those parties, I think it's easy to understand how the median Facebook employee wouldn't see it that way, especially if their day-to-day job is something not directly having to do with communities/the newsfeed.)
(Even if Facebook is more responsible than those parties, I think it's easy to understand how the median Facebook employee wouldn't see it that way, especially if their day-to-day job is something not directly having to do with communities/the newsfeed.)
> how far down the stack does it go?
There are no hard rules, just values and precedents. If I were to summarize the precedent, it would be a three-prong test: Do you know about the behavior? Do you contribute to it? Do you have the power to stop it?
If (1) and (2), we're at the Nuremberg threshold. That is, if the crime at hand rises to that of crimes against humanity, (1) and (2) alone should be enough. If it doesn't rise to that level, test (3) comes into question. "Stop" is an ambiguous term, as is "crimes against humanity," so there is a lot of subjectivity here.
But to take your analogy, no, a San Francisco warehouse worker at Cisco wouldn't be culpable for e.g. their CFO bribing a foreign official. A content buyer at Instagram isn't responsible for the slave ads. But engineers deploying the ad systems, incentivized by ad metrics? Business development? Any executive at Facebook? Somewhat to totally culpable.
There are no hard rules, just values and precedents. If I were to summarize the precedent, it would be a three-prong test: Do you know about the behavior? Do you contribute to it? Do you have the power to stop it?
If (1) and (2), we're at the Nuremberg threshold. That is, if the crime at hand rises to that of crimes against humanity, (1) and (2) alone should be enough. If it doesn't rise to that level, test (3) comes into question. "Stop" is an ambiguous term, as is "crimes against humanity," so there is a lot of subjectivity here.
But to take your analogy, no, a San Francisco warehouse worker at Cisco wouldn't be culpable for e.g. their CFO bribing a foreign official. A content buyer at Instagram isn't responsible for the slave ads. But engineers deploying the ad systems, incentivized by ad metrics? Business development? Any executive at Facebook? Somewhat to totally culpable.
> If I were to summarize the precedent, it would be a three-prong test: Do you know about the behavior? Do you contribute to it? Do you have the power to stop it?
Have you ever voted for any US representative or senator that got elected and wasn't Barbara Lee? Congratulations, your tests (1) and (2) say you're a war criminal.
Have you ever voted for any US representative or senator that got elected and wasn't Barbara Lee? Congratulations, your tests (1) and (2) say you're a war criminal.
Do you take issue with the validity of the test or are you just making observations?
There's a big difference here. Facebook's apparent purpose is to capture audiences and feed them ads. Cisco's purpose (was... I have no idea what they're up to these days) it to enable low level communication via their infrastructure products. These are so very different...
Now, if Cisco were negotiating preferential deals with oppressive regimes or companies that were well known for committing what most would consider to be crimes against humanity, then Cisco should choose not to sell to those groups. This is exactly what I'm suggesting FB do.
Now, if Cisco were negotiating preferential deals with oppressive regimes or companies that were well known for committing what most would consider to be crimes against humanity, then Cisco should choose not to sell to those groups. This is exactly what I'm suggesting FB do.
Well, Apple did apparently set the example here. If you know about it? Yes.
Yes.
There are apps to buy servants (i.e. slaves) in the Middle East in Play Store.
I think you might misunderstand the difference between slaves and servants, while similar it is not the same. I'm not condoning the behavior just want people to be accurate in their information.
They are slaves though. What is not letting somebody leave, taking their passports while not paying them if not slavery?
[deleted]
[deleted]
You could say the same for most companies though - Microsoft's dodgy QDOS and Mosaic deals, Amazon's warehouses and temp hiring practices.
> could say the same for most companies
No, you couldn’t, because while those things aren’t great, they aren’t literal slavery being advertised while the person they’re paying the ad money to looks the other way.
No, you couldn’t, because while those things aren’t great, they aren’t literal slavery being advertised while the person they’re paying the ad money to looks the other way.
I'd be honored to work for facebook.
Most of the facebook customers are small business, that benefit enormously from access to facebook, especially in the third world. They now have access to much larger pool of users. This drives economic growth and gradually brings prosperity to undeveloped countries, or disadvantaged small businesses. For example facebook has facebook light app, which is a lightweight app targeted for older phones.
The way ads work on fb is very simple you sign up for fb account and then basically, can post your ad. There are million of ads in hundreds of languages, although facebook works day and night to remove violating content. I'm sure facebook fight with abusers never ends. If you do not understand how hard this problem is, you're probably, have never been exposed to fb scale before.
Some companies, however, it seems, have given up on fighting the abuse altogether. For example, telegram has groups openly selling revenge porn, illegal heavy drugs, prostitution etc...
Other companies bypass third world countries and disadvantageous population altogether, like apple whose premium priced product are out of reach for these people in need.
Most of the facebook customers are small business, that benefit enormously from access to facebook, especially in the third world. They now have access to much larger pool of users. This drives economic growth and gradually brings prosperity to undeveloped countries, or disadvantaged small businesses. For example facebook has facebook light app, which is a lightweight app targeted for older phones.
The way ads work on fb is very simple you sign up for fb account and then basically, can post your ad. There are million of ads in hundreds of languages, although facebook works day and night to remove violating content. I'm sure facebook fight with abusers never ends. If you do not understand how hard this problem is, you're probably, have never been exposed to fb scale before.
Some companies, however, it seems, have given up on fighting the abuse altogether. For example, telegram has groups openly selling revenge porn, illegal heavy drugs, prostitution etc...
Other companies bypass third world countries and disadvantageous population altogether, like apple whose premium priced product are out of reach for these people in need.
> illegal heavy drugs, prostitution
If drugs, sex work and slavery are the same to you, and others sort of doing it makes selling ads for it okay, Facebook might be a good fit.
If drugs, sex work and slavery are the same to you, and others sort of doing it makes selling ads for it okay, Facebook might be a good fit.
No it is not the same. But you're naive if you think telegram does not have 100x the number of whatever bad is on facebook including slavery, especially in third world countries.
The examples, is just what you are *Bombarded* with on telegram if you vanture a bit away from corporate channels and happen to know other languages than English.
The examples, is just what you are *Bombarded* with on telegram if you vanture a bit away from corporate channels and happen to know other languages than English.
Speaking as someone who used to work on Microsoft's CETS - it was driven by an undertsanding that if you provide a platform and ecosystem, you have some level of responsibility to prevent and/or mitigate the harms that occur, or may occur.
I personally haven't seen any charitable or notable contributions by Facebook, Google in those spaces (i.e. slavery, human trafficking or child exploitation) - admitedly, I could have missed news on their efforts.
I personally haven't seen any charitable or notable contributions by Facebook, Google in those spaces (i.e. slavery, human trafficking or child exploitation) - admitedly, I could have missed news on their efforts.
Slavery and human trafficking is illegal. How are their debates about moderating it? I haven’t seen any.
It’s like calling for violence, there isn’t a question it has to be moderated.
The gray areas are non illegal things like hate speech.
It’s like calling for violence, there isn’t a question it has to be moderated.
The gray areas are non illegal things like hate speech.
There’s no question about moderating it, there’s a question of how aggressively and how complex the problem is.
Should #slavery be blocked? That hashtag probably also used for protesting and reasonable things. So you can’t just block all these terms - you should try to only block the ones abused.
Then, what about trickier terms? Once you block the words people start using code words instead. You need to constantly find these and remove them, and make sure you don’t block too many posts and people that didn’t deserve it.
Should #slavery be blocked? That hashtag probably also used for protesting and reasonable things. So you can’t just block all these terms - you should try to only block the ones abused.
Then, what about trickier terms? Once you block the words people start using code words instead. You need to constantly find these and remove them, and make sure you don’t block too many posts and people that didn’t deserve it.
This is something im really interested in. How did you get the information you needed to create the creep crawler? Was it effective at all? I'm a programmer and want to make something similar but have no idea where to start.
Everytime I think FB cannot be any worse, something like this comes up...
Where could someone go to get a reliable list of suspicious phrases like that one? Granted, I don't know if I want to know...
> Oftentimes, it's just strange dogwhistles to look out for like profiles of young women that say "Frycook at the Krusty Krab."
Wait, does that actually mean something? I have seen it many times and assumed it was just an innocuous SpongeBob reference.
Wait, does that actually mean something? I have seen it many times and assumed it was just an innocuous SpongeBob reference.
I doubt it. I've used Krusty Krab as an employer on some sites.
https://everipedia.org/wiki/lang_en/krusty-krab-facebook-emp...
https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/3d45t9/commen...
That reddit thread explains it pretty well. Facebook will nag you unless you provide an answer. Many people avoid associating themselves with their employer publicly and pop-culture is the first thing to come to mind.
https://everipedia.org/wiki/lang_en/krusty-krab-facebook-emp...
https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/3d45t9/commen...
That reddit thread explains it pretty well. Facebook will nag you unless you provide an answer. Many people avoid associating themselves with their employer publicly and pop-culture is the first thing to come to mind.
> Following an investigation prompted by an inquiry from the BBC, we conducted a proactive review of our platform.
That's pretty much the opposite of "proactive".
That's pretty much the opposite of "proactive".
proactive in terms of legislation/gov't investigation. if some news platform asks about it and even publishes something about it, it means nothing to FB. it's not like their users are going to stop. if the gov't looks in, it could mean that a new toothless wrist slap fine could be coming.
> The paper also quoted a 2019 internal report from Facebook, suggesting that the social media giant knew about, and had been investigating, the online slave trade before the BBC got in contact.
The article seems to conflict itself on this subject.
The article seems to conflict itself on this subject.
This pressure should be applied to the very top - eliminating trade with countries where these behaviors are common.
And US companies should choose to not, and perhaps should be banned from, operating in countries where their services are used for human trafficing. FB and Google shareholders should demand this from their companies. Of course it will mean some reduced revenue, but I think most Americans regardless of political affiliation would agree that human trafficing is just unacceptable.
Additionally, Facebook and Google are very smart. They can connect dots (accounts). They know who is selling humans, and they could perma-ban these people. Essentially it should be possible to prevent these people from ever using any account on any of the major tech services.
And US companies should choose to not, and perhaps should be banned from, operating in countries where their services are used for human trafficing. FB and Google shareholders should demand this from their companies. Of course it will mean some reduced revenue, but I think most Americans regardless of political affiliation would agree that human trafficing is just unacceptable.
Additionally, Facebook and Google are very smart. They can connect dots (accounts). They know who is selling humans, and they could perma-ban these people. Essentially it should be possible to prevent these people from ever using any account on any of the major tech services.
Even if Facebook and…Google (I assume you mean AdWord or YouTube accounts?) could reliably identify these people as you claim, is just perma banning them the right solution? It seems like it would be better to get the police involved and actually help whoever is being abused as well as arrest these people. Perma bans just pushes the problem elsewhere.
>is just perma banning them the right solution? It seems like it would be better to get the police involved and actually help whoever is being abused as well as arrest these people
Yeah but you don't get credit in the media for working on the problem silently. You need to slam the banhammer so the censored speak out & everyone knows you're "doing the right thing".
/s
Yeah but you don't get credit in the media for working on the problem silently. You need to slam the banhammer so the censored speak out & everyone knows you're "doing the right thing".
/s
So you're saying tech companies want to ban human traffickers so that the human traffickers speak out publicly about being censored, giving said tech companies credit for acting?
Um, I think this falls apart where human traffickers are supposed to speak out ...
Um, I think this falls apart where human traffickers are supposed to speak out ...
These people often reside in places where the police is comlocit with the trafficking.
A lot of the countries where this stuff happens don't have strong enough governments to stop it. It's easy to become accustomed to powerful western governments if you've grown up in one, but not good to expect the same level of law enforcement in the global south. That's even when those governments care about stopping the problem - it's not something you can just will away. Eliminating trade in these countries just makes life worse for the rest of the citizens there and doesn't make the human trafficking problem go away.
Beyond that... human trafficking happens in USA. A lot around super bowl time.
Beyond that... human trafficking happens in USA. A lot around super bowl time.
Saudi Arabia and Kuwait don't have strong enough governments?
That seems like a nice way to avoid liability, but I don't see how that stops the modern slave trade in the middle east.
Today human traffic tomorrow posts critical of these top tech companies.
Let's Perma-ban as many people as possible so these sites look like a disney movie.
Let's perma-ban political figures I don't support.
Let's perma-ban all.. and move to free platforms.
Let's Perma-ban as many people as possible so these sites look like a disney movie.
Let's perma-ban political figures I don't support.
Let's perma-ban all.. and move to free platforms.
"First they came for the human traffickers, but I said nothing because I wasn't a human trafficker." Somehow I don't think this is particularly convincing.
Let me guess you heard it before and have decided these companies will never use their power against you? You are safe.. until it's too late.
Are you still using Apple after finding out about them scanning your local photos? I guess that wasn't particulary convincing?
Are you still using Apple after finding out about them scanning your local photos? I guess that wasn't particulary convincing?
Get outta here with that slippery slope silliness
Check back in a few years. You could be the next one sliding.
An alternative perspective…should FB and Google continue to offer their services so that they can inform and assist international authorities with stopping it?
It just seems like platform bans do very little other than move the activity into more shadowy places.
It just seems like platform bans do very little other than move the activity into more shadowy places.
I'm not convinced the authorities in those countries really object to the practices.
Normally I would agree about bans pushing the activity into shadowy places, but at least in this case it would probably limit the exposure to just the countries with the bad practices. Basically it would hopefully limit more international trade of people.
From the opposite perspective, since Facebook unfortunately seems to be a common place for businesses to promote themselves, cutting off a country (with clear explanation why) would perhaps make some of its businesses put pressure on the government to enact some changes. Basically it would limit economic activities, and most individuals/businesses/governments don't want that.
Normally I would agree about bans pushing the activity into shadowy places, but at least in this case it would probably limit the exposure to just the countries with the bad practices. Basically it would hopefully limit more international trade of people.
From the opposite perspective, since Facebook unfortunately seems to be a common place for businesses to promote themselves, cutting off a country (with clear explanation why) would perhaps make some of its businesses put pressure on the government to enact some changes. Basically it would limit economic activities, and most individuals/businesses/governments don't want that.
There's a balance here but it really is important to consider how much less effective those shadowy places would be without free use of tools built by billions of dollars of developer and SRE time. Facebook and Google give them platforms they could never afford on their own and there's a big question of access when it comes to things like recruiting being more effective when it can happen on a legitimate mainstream platform.
Now, there is some question about the value of cooperation with international authorities but that is undercut by the long history of not working with those organizations and concealing problems rather than reporting them. I'm not sure that can happen without something like a regulatory requirement with personal liability for senior management in the event of non-compliance — they need to fear this at least as much as, say, a financial firm fears lying to the SEC.
Now, there is some question about the value of cooperation with international authorities but that is undercut by the long history of not working with those organizations and concealing problems rather than reporting them. I'm not sure that can happen without something like a regulatory requirement with personal liability for senior management in the event of non-compliance — they need to fear this at least as much as, say, a financial firm fears lying to the SEC.
Why just perma ban people who Google and Facebook and Apple know to be in the slave trade? Why not publish everything about their identities to allow them to be hunted down?
I thought about suggsting this, but that's too risky. False positives are unacceptable here because of the potential repercussions.
Now, reporting those people to the authorities for investigation might be ok, but that assumes the authorites object to the behaviors.
Now, reporting those people to the authorities for investigation might be ok, but that assumes the authorites object to the behaviors.
Banning is fine but doxxing can destroy an innocent person’s reputation, which can lead to physical harm in their personal lives. We have law enforcement and court systems for that. I don’t believe tech companies should pass these kind of punishments.
Sounds like a good policy for report enemies, teachers and quasi-celebrities who you may more info on.
> And US companies should choose to not, and perhaps should be banned from, operating in countries where their services are used for human trafficing.
That's an insane ask. You'd be pulling Apple out of markets they have no intention of leaving, and you'd be forcing the entirety of FAANG to double down on their domestic authority if they want to survive (see: collude harder with the NSA). I'm all for striking when the iron's hot, but it would be awfully easy to dent our nation while we're this malleable.
That's an insane ask. You'd be pulling Apple out of markets they have no intention of leaving, and you'd be forcing the entirety of FAANG to double down on their domestic authority if they want to survive (see: collude harder with the NSA). I'm all for striking when the iron's hot, but it would be awfully easy to dent our nation while we're this malleable.
Not to mention there are plenty of alternatives coming from different countries. Having Google and Facebook pull out of say Laos just means Wechat and baidu would move in.
Apple should see some of the horrendous things I’ve found in their own app, Safari. /s
In all seriousness I think Apple holding apps accountable for all content anyone on earth posts is just ludicrous.
In all seriousness I think Apple holding apps accountable for all content anyone on earth posts is just ludicrous.
Apple is holding you responsible to effectively moderate content you distribute through your service.
This is completely reasonable.
This is completely reasonable.
Who holds Apple responsible to effectively moderate the gigabytes of CSAM filmed with their products on a daily basis?
Facebook has a moral, contractual, and sometimes a legal obligation to moderate Instagram.
But not Safari?
I can't believe how many people are trying to argue this point. You really can't see the difference between Facebook and a web browser? Are you REALLY suggesting that web browsers should censor the entire web, and if they don't then no website should be required to censor anything? Or are you just trolling/playing devil's advocate. Because it certainly feels like the latter.
Correct, because Safari doesn’t host content.
The only reasonable explanation is they never believed in this standard to begin with and just assumed they could get away with selective enforcing rules like this when it's convenient for them to do so. It would be hard to argue that the iPhone and iMessage isn't more useful than a relatively simple image sharing site like Instagram when it comes to facilitating slavery.
Apple is not responsible for the web's content. Facebook is most definitely responsible for the content they store and provide on Instagram.
It's absurd how some people dislike Apple so much they're willing to defend Facebook's right to provide human trafficking services.
It's absurd how some people dislike Apple so much they're willing to defend Facebook's right to provide human trafficking services.
I write a document with illegal content [1] in Word, use Adobe to turn into a PDF, upload it with Chrome through Verizon to Facebook from where a different users downloads it through AT&T and Safari to print it on their Canon printer. And the internet backbone is also somewhere in-between. And the computer manufacturers. And the operating system. And thousands of libraries.
If we want this content filtered out, what makes Facebook special in this chain such that it is their responsibility to perform the filtering? Why is Word not responsible for preventing the creation of the document in the first place? Why does the service provider not prevent the upload? Why does the printer not refuse to print the document? Or a screen blur the content?
I am not arguing that it is not the responsibility of Facebook, I just want to point out that - at least at first look - this seems to be pretty arbitrary pick. So what makes Facebook special? Is it just a matter of practicality because Facebook is the single point of failure in that chain that can not be bypassed?
[1] Let us ignore all the complications due to different jurisdictions.
If we want this content filtered out, what makes Facebook special in this chain such that it is their responsibility to perform the filtering? Why is Word not responsible for preventing the creation of the document in the first place? Why does the service provider not prevent the upload? Why does the printer not refuse to print the document? Or a screen blur the content?
I am not arguing that it is not the responsibility of Facebook, I just want to point out that - at least at first look - this seems to be pretty arbitrary pick. So what makes Facebook special? Is it just a matter of practicality because Facebook is the single point of failure in that chain that can not be bypassed?
[1] Let us ignore all the complications due to different jurisdictions.
Monetisation. Facebook has a commercial imperative to distribute content regardless of what that content espouses. None of the other companies have any commercial imperative to generate income from you after you purchase access to their services/devices. Sure, they could play a role in preventing crime (and often do, e.g. the way printers print identifiable patterns on printouts to track printer usage). But in the chain you describe, Facebook has a direct financial reward for distributing such content (via displaying ads) and no other means of generating income.
> what makes Facebook special in this chain such that it is their responsibility to perform the filtering
Distribution. Each step until Facebook doesn't involve sharing with others, it's between you and a machine until that
Distribution. Each step until Facebook doesn't involve sharing with others, it's between you and a machine until that
Any link in the chain will prevent distribution if broken, there is nothing special about Facebook besides being the last - and arguably only - link where breaking a single link is sufficient to break all the chains to the document at once. But you could also prevent distribution by breaking the download for everyone or by breaking the upload for me. As I said, Facebook is only special because it is a singular point, there will always be multiple word processors, browsers, or service providers. On the other hand not even this is really true, if you generalize Facebook to a content sharing platform, then even this singular link vanishes.
So maybe you mean more like the discoverability for people is provided by Facebook. But would this then not also imply that search engines have to filter their search results? And in both cases I could argue that the service provider preventing the upload would also prevent discoverability on Facebook, and not only on Facebook but on the entire internet at once.
So maybe you mean more like the discoverability for people is provided by Facebook. But would this then not also imply that search engines have to filter their search results? And in both cases I could argue that the service provider preventing the upload would also prevent discoverability on Facebook, and not only on Facebook but on the entire internet at once.
But Facebook is the fan-out link, which does seem special. everything on either other side is 1:1, and then Facebook fans it a million ways.
No I don't mean discoverability (although, that too) and no I don't think search engines are involved at all. They link to the content, they don't host it.
Facebook hosts the content and makes it available to the public. That is why they are special. None of the other steps do both
Facebook hosts the content and makes it available to the public. That is why they are special. None of the other steps do both
[deleted]
[deleted]
Like all social contracts, it's subtle. Facebook is the "meeting place" and final location of sharing the content. Similar to an assualt happening in a park at night, you could look at the trainers the perpetrator wore, the mode of public transportation they took, etc, or the council could install lights in the park as they control the space (not a perfect metaphor).
Responsibility is the burden of those with the most means to enact change. There's no formal chain of logic for deciding where that burden lays. Your example presents every actor in the chain as equal options but depending on your political (philosophical) leaning you will want different actors to burden more or less of the responsibility. (control from the source or control from the event, or anywhere inbetween).
Responsibility is the burden of those with the most means to enact change. There's no formal chain of logic for deciding where that burden lays. Your example presents every actor in the chain as equal options but depending on your political (philosophical) leaning you will want different actors to burden more or less of the responsibility. (control from the source or control from the event, or anywhere inbetween).
Your analogy is that FB is like the park where an assault happens? So I assume you are saying that FB has no responsibility whatsoever?
Facebook is the park and the council that controls it.
Facebook is the only step that treats the content semantically rather than as a stream of bytes.
Facebook's business relies on moderating content to drive engagement to get ad/user-data money.
Not to mention, slavery is against Facebook's own TOS. So Facebook has taken up this responsibility themselves.
Facebook's business relies on moderating content to drive engagement to get ad/user-data money.
Not to mention, slavery is against Facebook's own TOS. So Facebook has taken up this responsibility themselves.
Because in this case and most others (but not all cases) it's the publication/sharing of the content that is the problem.
An advert for a slave isn't an issue if you write it, print it out and keep it in a draw. Likewise you can produce as much blasphemous, libellous, and obscene content as you like but if you don't share it with anyone, no one will care (unless you broke some law in creating it - stolen information, child pornography etc.)
An advert for a slave isn't an issue if you write it, print it out and keep it in a draw. Likewise you can produce as much blasphemous, libellous, and obscene content as you like but if you don't share it with anyone, no one will care (unless you broke some law in creating it - stolen information, child pornography etc.)
>what makes Facebook special
In your scenario they seem to be the place other people are "discovering" and downloading the PDF from. Perhaps gathering together to discuss whatever is in the PDF and reinforce each other's beliefs about the content. This could of course be done with a website/blog/forums but the reach of Facebook is of course immense, global and pervasive in pretty much every country. So Facebook is different because of its scale, network effect and ease of discoverability. The last issue with Facebook I would point out is that due to its corporate structure and size Facebook is only accountable to Mark Zuckerberg, and Mark Zuckerberg is accountable to no one.
I think the real issue facing society is that Facebook will always err on the side of user engagement unless forced to behave otherwise. If Facebook was really just about "connecting people" which I take to be innocuous communication between users and sharing pictures of kids/pets/etc. then they would have to strip out the features that allow their worst communities to form and operate. But Facebook knows that crazy grandparents sharing conspiracy theories and racist drivel drives engagement and so that content largely remains. It's up to our societies to solve this problem, because history has shown that Facebook will only do the right thing when forced to.
In your scenario they seem to be the place other people are "discovering" and downloading the PDF from. Perhaps gathering together to discuss whatever is in the PDF and reinforce each other's beliefs about the content. This could of course be done with a website/blog/forums but the reach of Facebook is of course immense, global and pervasive in pretty much every country. So Facebook is different because of its scale, network effect and ease of discoverability. The last issue with Facebook I would point out is that due to its corporate structure and size Facebook is only accountable to Mark Zuckerberg, and Mark Zuckerberg is accountable to no one.
I think the real issue facing society is that Facebook will always err on the side of user engagement unless forced to behave otherwise. If Facebook was really just about "connecting people" which I take to be innocuous communication between users and sharing pictures of kids/pets/etc. then they would have to strip out the features that allow their worst communities to form and operate. But Facebook knows that crazy grandparents sharing conspiracy theories and racist drivel drives engagement and so that content largely remains. It's up to our societies to solve this problem, because history has shown that Facebook will only do the right thing when forced to.
Facebook makes editorial decisions on your content--they can choose to put it in front of 100k people or 20 people, all driven exclusively by revenue potential.
Word doesn't decided whether or not what you're typing should make it to the document based on how it impacts their revenue. Adobe doesn't render Mein Kampf instead of your doc based on revenue potential.
Word doesn't decided whether or not what you're typing should make it to the document based on how it impacts their revenue. Adobe doesn't render Mein Kampf instead of your doc based on revenue potential.
If a random person hosts that pdf/image etc. on their personal server they are also responsible for serving that content. So I don't see how this differs for a big company. You make content available therefore become a publisher. Also hosting companies can and should be held responsible for the content of their servers their customers host.
Word, Adobe, Chrome, Safari and the Canon printer are either something that you own or lease access to and is under the control of the user, thus it is the users responsibility.
The ISPs are common carriers and do not get a say.
Facebook is not under the control of the user, and not a common carrier, so they should be held responsible, at least to some degree.
The ISPs are common carriers and do not get a say.
Facebook is not under the control of the user, and not a common carrier, so they should be held responsible, at least to some degree.
Because right now we only have the capability to regulate content where it is stored and after the fact of its storage, hence Facebook. But your suggestions are all great ideas—all forms of on-device scanning which, last I checked, HN was all up in arms against when it was Apple who was about to do it.
Facebook is literally and legally the publisher.
> what makes Facebook special in this chain
Responsibility should be proportional to profit. I am not even sure Facebook is the most profitable link in this chain, but it probably is.
> Is it just a matter of practicality because Facebook is the single point of failure in that chain that can not be bypassed
And they have the best capability for that reason.
Responsibility should be proportional to profit. I am not even sure Facebook is the most profitable link in this chain, but it probably is.
> Is it just a matter of practicality because Facebook is the single point of failure in that chain that can not be bypassed
And they have the best capability for that reason.
Facebook/IG is bigger than the Internet in many countries, because it arrives for free on phones, and because it arrived before people started generating web content in their locale.
For many of these people, Facebook == Internet.
This is not to discourage what you are saying, it’s just a note that what Safari shows is kind of arbitrary in the abstract.
For many of these people, Facebook == Internet.
This is not to discourage what you are saying, it’s just a note that what Safari shows is kind of arbitrary in the abstract.
The analogy here is mandating Safari to block individual URLs as a condition for it remaining in the app store.
Nobody here defends human trafficking. People defend freedom of speech and open computing.
Nobody here defends human trafficking. People defend freedom of speech and open computing.
> People defend freedom of speech and open computing.
But what does that have to do with Facebook? Facebook is not a free speech platform. They built and maintain their social network based on content moderation. Their social network, of course, is the reason anyone uses Facebook.
Anyway, Safari doesn't host and moderate the content of the internet, but Facebook certainly does host and moderate the content of Facebook. There's no real logical connection here.
But what does that have to do with Facebook? Facebook is not a free speech platform. They built and maintain their social network based on content moderation. Their social network, of course, is the reason anyone uses Facebook.
Anyway, Safari doesn't host and moderate the content of the internet, but Facebook certainly does host and moderate the content of Facebook. There's no real logical connection here.
Apple/Google have enabled mobile internet usage which has fundamentally enabled both legal and illegal activities. Safari is the way they do it. Still, in the absence of mobile phones, a lot of these illegal activities would slow down.
Every tech platform is enabling illegal activities. Glorifying Apple and Google here is a mistake this article makes.
Every tech platform is enabling illegal activities. Glorifying Apple and Google here is a mistake this article makes.
If Facebook is responsible for the content users see on their site, how is Apple not responsible for the content users see on Safari? I really don't see how you can argue for banning the Instagram app while the Safari app still allows users to visit the Instagram website and view the exact same content.
Ultimately, this is the textbook definition of virtue signalling. Apple was never going to ban Facebook; they just want to let people know they oppose slavery (their own factories excluded of course).
Ultimately, this is the textbook definition of virtue signalling. Apple was never going to ban Facebook; they just want to let people know they oppose slavery (their own factories excluded of course).
Because Facebook amplifies or suppresses all content based on revenue implications. You're not seeing user content as submitted by users. A post with 10 likes from a day ago will be presented ahead of a post with 15 likes from 20m ago if Facebook thinks it has a better chance of getting you to engage (i.e. infuriates you because it's ludicrous misinformation)
Apple doesn't make revenue based on some StumbleUpon-like Safari experience where they dictate the content in your Safari window.
Apple doesn't make revenue based on some StumbleUpon-like Safari experience where they dictate the content in your Safari window.
Apple is currently, literally, providing user data to a regime engaged in forced labor and ethnic cleansing (China, Uyghers). Point isn't that human trafficking is OK, but that parent isn't incorrect about Apple playing the moral authority being laughable.
You joke, but if the web were invented today, browsers would never be allowed onto mobile app stores.
The saddest bit of that is that mobile app stores would not exist if it weren't for the web. The only reason we got smartphones was to browse the web on the go.
This is already the case on iOS, where every browser must be reimplemented as a Safari skin.
If the web were invented today, search engines would get sued into oblivion.
Well yes, alcohol is legal and people seem surprisingly okay with how much slavery goes into the cobalt of the average mobile phone as well as the Qatar football stadium.
The biggest ally of slavery is of course an œconomic dependence thereupon. — The knight in the shining armor standing for the downtrodden remains awfully silent when he depends on said downtrodden for the polish to keep his armor so shiny.
The biggest ally of slavery is of course an œconomic dependence thereupon. — The knight in the shining armor standing for the downtrodden remains awfully silent when he depends on said downtrodden for the polish to keep his armor so shiny.
That is not a reasonable criticism. However, Apple is far from the good guy. Look at all the pro China things they have done. People committing suicide after being forced to work endlessly. Agreeing to the Great Firewall rules to continue doing business in China. I'm sure it is similar in other countries too. We know the people who make nearly everything we buy are treated not much better than slaves. It is not just China, look at the Nabisco workers, look at the meat processing plants. And largely we don't care. There is no reason extreme pressure couldn't start to force changes at these companies but mostly we are just glad it isn't us. Our whole society has lost all sense of empathy and it is sad.
> Look at all the pro China things they have done.
Just because they follow the rules of another nation doesn't make them 'pro China'. Is Apple 'pro-US', 'pro-EU', 'pro-Saudi Arabia', etc? No, Apple is pro-business/pro-money. They are a company selling products and services around the world.
> People committing suicide after being forced to work endlessly.
Isn't that Foxconn, a Taiwanese company?
> Agreeing to the Great Firewall rules to continue doing business in China..
So you think facebook and apple should moderate content but China shouldn't moderate content?
> It is not just China, look at the Nabisco workers
A nice save.
> There is no reason extreme pressure couldn't start to force changes at these companies but mostly we are just glad it isn't us.
Change what? Rather than trying to change individual monopolistic companies, we should allow for more competition so that we can decide where to take our business. We have a problem of monopolies.
> Our whole society has lost all sense of empathy and it is sad.
Everyone has their own version of empathy. And everyone wants to enforce their version of empathy on everyone else. It's a problem humans and human societies have had forever.
Just because they follow the rules of another nation doesn't make them 'pro China'. Is Apple 'pro-US', 'pro-EU', 'pro-Saudi Arabia', etc? No, Apple is pro-business/pro-money. They are a company selling products and services around the world.
> People committing suicide after being forced to work endlessly.
Isn't that Foxconn, a Taiwanese company?
> Agreeing to the Great Firewall rules to continue doing business in China..
So you think facebook and apple should moderate content but China shouldn't moderate content?
> It is not just China, look at the Nabisco workers
A nice save.
> There is no reason extreme pressure couldn't start to force changes at these companies but mostly we are just glad it isn't us.
Change what? Rather than trying to change individual monopolistic companies, we should allow for more competition so that we can decide where to take our business. We have a problem of monopolies.
> Our whole society has lost all sense of empathy and it is sad.
Everyone has their own version of empathy. And everyone wants to enforce their version of empathy on everyone else. It's a problem humans and human societies have had forever.
Agree, except that we have never had any empathy except for friends an family, or at most people who are similar to us.
No no, they putting nets up, can't even suicide anymore. Forced slavery.
> In all seriousness I think Apple holding apps accountable for all content anyone on earth posts is just ludicrous
It’s radical views like this which taint the technical community’s ability to project on policy. If your principles are so hardline that they’re on the side of ads for slavery, maybe double check your priors?
It’s radical views like this which taint the technical community’s ability to project on policy. If your principles are so hardline that they’re on the side of ads for slavery, maybe double check your priors?
If your principles are so black and white that simply others' beliefs happen to benefit the bad guy one time, maybe double check YOURS. That's like saying, "Oh, we need to outlaw encryption. Oh? You disagree? Why are you siding with the child pornographers?"
> that’s like saying, "Oh, we need to outlaw encryption. Oh? You disagree? Why are you siding with the child pornographers?"
Outlawing encryption is a general and comprehensive prescription.
Apple telling Facebook to stop advertising slavery, Facebook doing nothing, and Apple coming back saying “for real, it’s slavery, if you don’t knock it off we’ll ban you from our App Store,” is specific and targeted. It’s also limited, in that Safari exists.
Outlawing encryption is a general and comprehensive prescription.
Apple telling Facebook to stop advertising slavery, Facebook doing nothing, and Apple coming back saying “for real, it’s slavery, if you don’t knock it off we’ll ban you from our App Store,” is specific and targeted. It’s also limited, in that Safari exists.
Why stop at Apple? We understand that there is a government that is making companies liable for moderating their user-uploaded content, correct?
The difference is that browser makers don't make money off the web, while Facebook makes money off of Instagram.
Every browser makes money off the web. For example, Firefox makes $400 million (!) per year from making Google the default search provider.
Apple is holding Facebook accountable for the largely automated, but exclusively revenue-driven, decisions they make on whether to amplify or to suppress any given piece of information/content/advertising. It's insidious and goes beyond editorial control. They have the power to control the national dialogue.
Facebook signed up for this scrutiny when they decided that not all posts were equal. If all posts had an equal chance (i.e., were exclusively sorted chronologically) then I think this would be a very different conversation. But that's just not as profitable so `viva la sedition!`
Facebook signed up for this scrutiny when they decided that not all posts were equal. If all posts had an equal chance (i.e., were exclusively sorted chronologically) then I think this would be a very different conversation. But that's just not as profitable so `viva la sedition!`
Maybe we should stop doing business with countries that allow slavery for any reason including punishment for a crime.
If we did that, we'd have to stop doing business with ourselves.
I think it's likely GP was explicitly targetting the USA with that comment.
Where no nationally sanctioned slavery exists... Got it.
Where an explicit exemption exists for slavery as punishment for a crime (often called forced labor in modern jargon, but explicitly considered slavery in the 13th amendment).
...except for the case of prisoners, who are explicitly excluded.
Why the downvotes? Have you folks not read the 13th Amendment?
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, EXCEPT AS PUNISHMENT FOR CRIME whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, EXCEPT AS PUNISHMENT FOR CRIME whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
If you want to have a bad day watch this documentary about the 13th amendment and slavery in the prison-industrial complex. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/13th_(film)
So every country allows slavery? I agree there are problems with our prison system but that is not the same thing as slavery. It doesn't meet the legal definition at all and sure you can make comparisons but it's not really morally the same either.
I agree there are problems with our prison system but that is not the same thing as slavery.
The actual text of 13A makes involuntary servitude and or slavery a specific statutory exemption to the abolition of slavery. How can one read it, then say it's "not the same thing"?
I wasn't aware that the merits and table stakes of this particular discussion was whether or not other countries permitted slavery, when several grandparent comments ago, it was established that the criticism was levied against the United States-in a discussion about actions taken by two corporations that exist in the United States?
Is the whataboutism regarding other countries and their statutory frameworks on slavery really relevant here?
The actual text of 13A makes involuntary servitude and or slavery a specific statutory exemption to the abolition of slavery. How can one read it, then say it's "not the same thing"?
I wasn't aware that the merits and table stakes of this particular discussion was whether or not other countries permitted slavery, when several grandparent comments ago, it was established that the criticism was levied against the United States-in a discussion about actions taken by two corporations that exist in the United States?
Is the whataboutism regarding other countries and their statutory frameworks on slavery really relevant here?
Yeah you give up rights when you get IMPRISONED. That's the definition and point. Are you arguing prison shouldn't exist? That prisoners should do nothing while incarcerated? Aren't most prisoners paid a small amount when they actually do "work"?
>Is the whataboutism regarding other countries and their statutory frameworks on slavery really relevant here?
Yes, because the comment was directed specifically at the US with a sorry attempt at comparing it with fascist countries like China. allowing If we're going that route then there is nowhere slavery doesn't exist and the entire argument about avoiding slave countries is moot.
To answer your first question... absolutely NO, "slavery" of imprisoned people is not the same and I think you know that, otherwise you would not care if the 13th amendment existed at all. You're presenting a disingenuous argument with a semantic word game. Any sane person knows imprisonment "slavery" and slavery blacks endured isn't the same.
>Is the whataboutism regarding other countries and their statutory frameworks on slavery really relevant here?
Yes, because the comment was directed specifically at the US with a sorry attempt at comparing it with fascist countries like China. allowing If we're going that route then there is nowhere slavery doesn't exist and the entire argument about avoiding slave countries is moot.
To answer your first question... absolutely NO, "slavery" of imprisoned people is not the same and I think you know that, otherwise you would not care if the 13th amendment existed at all. You're presenting a disingenuous argument with a semantic word game. Any sane person knows imprisonment "slavery" and slavery blacks endured isn't the same.
Prisoners in the USA are forced to work, even if they are getting some small amount of money for it. They can be further punished of they refuse to work.
In contrast, many, if not all, European countries disallow forced work for prisoners. They may still offer jobs to prisoners, but the prisoners are not compelled to take them, do not suffer punishment if they don't.
In contrast, many, if not all, European countries disallow forced work for prisoners. They may still offer jobs to prisoners, but the prisoners are not compelled to take them, do not suffer punishment if they don't.
At least constitutionally, in the Czech Republic, the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms (https://www.usoud.cz/fileadmin/user_upload/ustavni_soud_www/...) does not prohibit forced labour of prisoners -- this is one of the explicit exemptions to forced labour prohibition. Of course the exemption talks about "labour imposed in accordance with law", and I don't know off the top of my head what are the legal details of this.
Once again the prison exemption is completely forgotten about in a discussion of slavery.
It's not forgotten, just conveniently ignored. Criminals are not afforded human status to many people, which makes political and racial criminilization such a valuable tool for government (ie. Nixon, Kissinger et al for a clear expression of this mentality).
It's not forgotten, just conveniently ignored.
It was with a balled up fist, covered up in a velvet glove that I described the phenomenon as "forgotten"
because you're completely correct with this, IMO. It absolutely does get flatly ignored for convenient (but nonetheless ethically atrocious) politicization of criminality.
It was with a balled up fist, covered up in a velvet glove that I described the phenomenon as "forgotten"
because you're completely correct with this, IMO. It absolutely does get flatly ignored for convenient (but nonetheless ethically atrocious) politicization of criminality.
[deleted]
[deleted]
USA has legalized slavery so long as the person has been convicted of a crime.
Want to hire some slaves for call center work?
https://unicor.gov/ContactCenterVideo.aspx
They've also got slaves fighting fires in CA.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2021/07/califor...
Want some slave milk?
https://unicor.gov/Product.aspx?idProduct=281
Want to hire some slaves for call center work?
https://unicor.gov/ContactCenterVideo.aspx
They've also got slaves fighting fires in CA.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2021/07/califor...
Want some slave milk?
https://unicor.gov/Product.aspx?idProduct=281
What would you propose we do with people who commit violent crimes and who are likely to commit them again?
Pay them for their labor, and don't force them to do it if they don't want to. Forced labor and incarceration are two different things that don't depend on one another. You can incarcerate people without forcing them to work.
If any sort of majority of our prison population had committed violent crimes, and we had no evidence of other ways to handle people than enslaving them, you might have a point.
As it is, using prison populations to provide lower-cost-than-otherwise-legal labor for private corporations creates a huge mountain of perverse incentives.
As it is, using prison populations to provide lower-cost-than-otherwise-legal labor for private corporations creates a huge mountain of perverse incentives.
> As it is, using prison populations to provide lower-cost-than-otherwise-legal labor for private corporations creates a huge mountain of perverse incentives.
The vast majority of prison labor is for the direct benefit of the states or the federal government, not private companies. Still a huge mountain of perverse incentives, though.
The vast majority of prison labor is for the direct benefit of the states or the federal government, not private companies. Still a huge mountain of perverse incentives, though.
> If any sort of majority of our prison population had committed violent crimes
This is more or less a myth, depending on how you define "violent" and how you define "prison population." No matter how you define those terms, "a significant percentage of the prison population is there for a serious non-drug crime" should be uncontroversial.
Source: https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2020.html
Memes about mass incarceration have been almost too successful, so that people now have the wrong idea in the other direction. According to Wikipedia, "15 percent of state prisoners at year-end 2015 had been convicted of a drug offense as their most serious infraction." That is enough of a scandal on its own terms, but people have sort of inflated the claims beyond what's really supported by the evidence. It's 15%, not "most" and not a majority, etc. In fact most prisoners are there for serious non-drug offenses.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_St...
This is more or less a myth, depending on how you define "violent" and how you define "prison population." No matter how you define those terms, "a significant percentage of the prison population is there for a serious non-drug crime" should be uncontroversial.
Source: https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2020.html
Memes about mass incarceration have been almost too successful, so that people now have the wrong idea in the other direction. According to Wikipedia, "15 percent of state prisoners at year-end 2015 had been convicted of a drug offense as their most serious infraction." That is enough of a scandal on its own terms, but people have sort of inflated the claims beyond what's really supported by the evidence. It's 15%, not "most" and not a majority, etc. In fact most prisoners are there for serious non-drug offenses.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_St...
The vast majority of people in prison could have trivially avoided being there.
Even if you accept that most prisoners have committed crimes that actually ought to be crimes, "trivially" is pretty callous. Ever been in a group that started to do something you didn't like?
Yeah, they could have just chosen to be born white or rich! /s
Murder is understandable if you're black and or poor. /s
How many people in the US prison population committed violent crimes?
A lot. Source: https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2020.html
If you look specifically at people serving at least 1 year in a state prison (which is where most of the convicted prisoners are, as the link above shows), then it's a majority:
"However, the Bureau of Justice Statistics reported that, as of the end of 2015, 54% of state prisoners sentenced to more than 1 year were serving time for a violent offense. 15 percent of state prisoners at year-end 2015 had been convicted of a drug offense as their most serious infraction."
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_St...
If you look specifically at people serving at least 1 year in a state prison (which is where most of the convicted prisoners are, as the link above shows), then it's a majority:
"However, the Bureau of Justice Statistics reported that, as of the end of 2015, 54% of state prisoners sentenced to more than 1 year were serving time for a violent offense. 15 percent of state prisoners at year-end 2015 had been convicted of a drug offense as their most serious infraction."
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_St...
A substantial fraction. people way overestimate how much of it is just drugs. Of course most violent crimes like domestic abuse and rape dont lead to prison sentences
Unfortunately money has always spoken louder than morals and given enough money almost anything can be justified.
[deleted]
How is prisoners working for basically free any different?
They could at least stop profiting from companies who openly engage in slavery and genocide.
If it’s not Facebook it will be another home grown crud app. Slavery in Middle East is an open secret. All middle class families have a servant or worse a child trafficked from poor countries like Bangladesh, India as bonded labor.
The issue is that there won't be an international political, business and academic boycott of the Arab Gulf countries before we transition away from oil. Moving away from oil will also severely affect the income in these countries, effectively saving millions of young women from slavery.
Side note, this article shows how easy and perversely widespread this barbarity is, however these women also endure physical beatings, emotional abuse and sexual exploitation (rape).
Side note, this article shows how easy and perversely widespread this barbarity is, however these women also endure physical beatings, emotional abuse and sexual exploitation (rape).
I don't get it. You should see what gets posted on Twitter, Craigslist, Nextdoor, Instagram, Facebook. Should Apple pull all those too? Will they pull browsers that allow you to visit these websites next?
Instagram is also actively used to sell hard drugs
It's fair to say that their moderation sucks
It's fair to say that their moderation sucks
Facebook has already replaced the community center and the telephone company. Both of their replacements are worse for society, from a privacy standpoint as well as a quality of service standpoint.
Arbitrary censorship, no recourse for errors, et c.
Now people want them to take over for police, too.
There is already an organization whose job it is to police illegal activity.
Arbitrary censorship, no recourse for errors, et c.
Now people want them to take over for police, too.
There is already an organization whose job it is to police illegal activity.
So is twitter,facebook, reddit and you can find it on here if you ask around.
Where people exist their problems follow them.
Where people exist their problems follow them.
Apple manufacture a lot of their phones etc in China. I wonder what proportion of Apple products have slave labour in them?
It's like Facebook stopped developing it's content moderation technology 6 years ago despite their website growing in complexity (and range of use) to this day.
Can't they outsource the moderation to an Amazon Turk-like system, if they aren't willing to employ sufficient moderators themselves?
A lot of groups and pages (like newspapers) that have to "self-moderate" due to hate / propaganda spam posts and comments would be willing to pay a monthly fee for a quota in a Turk-like system for moderation.
A lot of groups and pages (like newspapers) that have to "self-moderate" due to hate / propaganda spam posts and comments would be willing to pay a monthly fee for a quota in a Turk-like system for moderation.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Facebook's various unofficial marketplaces like on Instagram and Whatsapp would be much safer if Facebook itself was involved and acting as escrow.
Safer for the buyers and sellers I mean, not the slaves.
Too many scammers out there, advertising slaves - in this context, but really any market - but are in fact without said goods.
Safer for the buyers and sellers I mean, not the slaves.
Too many scammers out there, advertising slaves - in this context, but really any market - but are in fact without said goods.
It's a good thing that they discovered the posts. It's a messed up world up here, and we still don't know how many of those slaves will be sold in other platforms that haven't been caught yet.
I am puzzled. The zeitgeist of HN is white hot outrage that this content can be found on Facebook/Google/etc, yet also to champion decentralized sharing systems which would make this sort of content uncensorable.
Can someone explain this to me? I ask this genuinely.
Can someone explain this to me? I ask this genuinely.
Many forums are dominated by absolutists of one bent or the other. The world is black and white, no shades of gray.
For those who are teachers or parents, you notice a lot of that in the <12 age group. For those who are older, you notice that a lot in the elderly. It’s simply a cognitive thing that most kids eventually develop and perhaps old folks lose, but it may just be that older folks lose interest in complicated issues after a life of complicated things.
For those who are teachers or parents, you notice a lot of that in the <12 age group. For those who are older, you notice that a lot in the elderly. It’s simply a cognitive thing that most kids eventually develop and perhaps old folks lose, but it may just be that older folks lose interest in complicated issues after a life of complicated things.
Decentralized/federated sharing doesn't eliminate censorship, it democratizes it. This relates to the censorship / moderation distinction.
When it is your community making the choices about what is considered acceptable, that sort of community moderation is essential to a well functioning online community. When an external entity is imposing standards on your community, that is considered censorship.
The line between these two can be super fuzzy and arbitrary, but that doesn't mean that this distinction doesn't have real value to those who make that distinction.
The impetus towards federation is because people want their communities to be able to set their own standards rather than having to abide by whatever decisions Facebook/Apple/Google/Twitter et al make.
Edit: For example, HN is has some significant moderation. I believe the vast majority of the HN community think that this moderation is not only beneficial but crucial to the community. If the HN moderators lost the respect/buy-in/consent of their community then this would start to be viewed as censorship.
When it is your community making the choices about what is considered acceptable, that sort of community moderation is essential to a well functioning online community. When an external entity is imposing standards on your community, that is considered censorship.
The line between these two can be super fuzzy and arbitrary, but that doesn't mean that this distinction doesn't have real value to those who make that distinction.
The impetus towards federation is because people want their communities to be able to set their own standards rather than having to abide by whatever decisions Facebook/Apple/Google/Twitter et al make.
Edit: For example, HN is has some significant moderation. I believe the vast majority of the HN community think that this moderation is not only beneficial but crucial to the community. If the HN moderators lost the respect/buy-in/consent of their community then this would start to be viewed as censorship.
Facebook/Google/etc displace previous iterations of the same services at a much larger scale. Their techno-optimist hope is that the scale can be managed by ever smarter algorithms. In practice, it turns out that in-person iterated human interactions have important moderation properties and can't be scaled out without losing something essential.
The decentralization impulse is yet another misguided techno-optimist hope of returning to smaller communities and thus somehow restoring the moderation effects of such settings. Which won't work, as the world of organic communities tied by kin relations (aka 'village') is completely different than the world of ever diverging echo chambers the Internet produces. The Global Village is intrinsically dysfunctional.
Facebook/Google cannot possibly perform healthy moderation at global scale, but fixing that can't be done short of banning the TCP/IP protocol.
The decentralization impulse is yet another misguided techno-optimist hope of returning to smaller communities and thus somehow restoring the moderation effects of such settings. Which won't work, as the world of organic communities tied by kin relations (aka 'village') is completely different than the world of ever diverging echo chambers the Internet produces. The Global Village is intrinsically dysfunctional.
Facebook/Google cannot possibly perform healthy moderation at global scale, but fixing that can't be done short of banning the TCP/IP protocol.
It should be obvious. Just like most of social media, people do it for kudos and to show they are good people who definitely don't need to be looked into, they promise, they're super good people, please don't look into them.
"Look a bad guy, ooohh I'm so mad, why aren't you mad?! Why aren't you mad!?! You're a bad guy. Look everyone it's a bad guy!" (please don't look at me though.)
Freedom of choice/movement/religion/opinion as long as you're not violating others freedom.
War on X <whatever it is> will never work, it never has, never will. We need better tools, and more love for our brothers and sisters in life.
"Look a bad guy, ooohh I'm so mad, why aren't you mad?! Why aren't you mad!?! You're a bad guy. Look everyone it's a bad guy!" (please don't look at me though.)
Freedom of choice/movement/religion/opinion as long as you're not violating others freedom.
War on X <whatever it is> will never work, it never has, never will. We need better tools, and more love for our brothers and sisters in life.
> yet also to champion decentralized sharing systems which would make this sort of content uncensorable.
Because it is decentralized doesn't mean that the content can't be filtered by the user... it depends how you build the system...
Because it is decentralized doesn't mean that the content can't be filtered by the user... it depends how you build the system...
If it's decentralized, it's harder to rank, sort, discover, and promote such content. Every gangster in the world has an email account, but you have to know their address to contact them. The centralized systems host the content, sort, filter, and promote such illegal content.
It's the difference between a vault of snuff VHS tapes hidden underground in a locked vault and a streaming snuff r' us channel that is promoted actively to people looking for snuff content, with the content mirrored globally for accessibility for all localities.
It's the difference between a vault of snuff VHS tapes hidden underground in a locked vault and a streaming snuff r' us channel that is promoted actively to people looking for snuff content, with the content mirrored globally for accessibility for all localities.
Wanting to eat one's cake while still having the cake is a time-honored tradition in human thought patterns. HN posters are no exception.
[deleted]
My best guess is that Facebook/Google is making money off the content (via ads), where a decentralized system wouldn't.
Different people pipe up based on different input
I would also be interested in honest answers here, but would not expect anyone to be willing to have this conversation.
Facebook == bad/evil, so easy reaction.
Censorship == bad/evil, so easy reaction.
Fixing some of FB's bad requires censorship. uh-oh. This one might require some thought vs reaction.
Facebook == bad/evil, so easy reaction.
Censorship == bad/evil, so easy reaction.
Fixing some of FB's bad requires censorship. uh-oh. This one might require some thought vs reaction.
We are looking the externalities. Until we start examining the root cause of what is causing people to behave this way on these platforms, and start addressing those issues, which is arguably much harder, everything is going to be lipstick on a pig IMO.
> Until we start examining the root cause of what is causing people to behave this way on these platforms...
People were just outraged at facebook last week for researching just that (how insta affects teens). I don't have much optimism in our ability to go beyond the surface.
People were just outraged at facebook last week for researching just that (how insta affects teens). I don't have much optimism in our ability to go beyond the surface.
I don't think most people were outraged at FB for _researching_ how Instagram affects teens. What people were outraged about was that upon finding that Instagram appears to have deleterious effects on teen girls, FB a) didn't share these findings with the public or consumers of Instagram, and b) doesn't appear to have done anything to correct or mitigate the negative effect their product appears to have on these people.
Agreed 100%. But oh the irony. You took time (and I’m taking more time) to put comments about the issue on an obscure forum of geeky people. As you’re pointing out, the roots of these problems (human trafficking) is not an internet problem. So internet censorship is not a real solution. And then we use the very internet (and our time) to diagnose this very issue.
Maybe we should all spend more time in the real world doing real things that make the world a better place so these evils happen less collectively. I’m going to do just that. I’ve just got a few more threads I need to comment on first…
Maybe we should all spend more time in the real world doing real things that make the world a better place so these evils happen less collectively. I’m going to do just that. I’ve just got a few more threads I need to comment on first…
I think it's also interesting here because really this is about Apple vs. Facebook (Instagram).
Apple is saying Facebook you need to moderate your content.
Which the question becomes "Is Instagram more than a glorified web browser?"
Apple is saying Facebook you need to moderate your content.
Which the question becomes "Is Instagram more than a glorified web browser?"
Instagram controls what is uploaded to its servers — a web browser does not do that.
You aren't wrong, but as far as I'm aware, the majority of content on the Instagram app is accessible via an instagram.com URL. That's what I mean by glorified browser. If apple is "banning" that app because of the content but that content is still available on the device via apple's own Safari, did they really ban anything?
---- The question is "when legally is apple responsible for UGC on instagram's servers?" That's the real question. Otherwise this would be moral grandstanding by Apple.
I'm pretty sure if anyone tried to sue Apple for "distributing objectionable content" they'd run to "we aren't responsible for what's on Instagram's servers." How responsible SHOULD Apple be for data hosted on instagram's servers?
---- The question is "when legally is apple responsible for UGC on instagram's servers?" That's the real question. Otherwise this would be moral grandstanding by Apple.
I'm pretty sure if anyone tried to sue Apple for "distributing objectionable content" they'd run to "we aren't responsible for what's on Instagram's servers." How responsible SHOULD Apple be for data hosted on instagram's servers?
Are you suggesting the app does local qualifications of what is uploaded vs processing on the server? Does it really matter which side the qualifing is done?
Are people incapable of nuance?
Blocking slave adverts != Censorship
I have no problem with that.
Blocking slave adverts != Censorship
I have no problem with that.
How do you block slave adverts across an entire federated protocol that is designed to be censorship resistant?
You don’t. Just like you don’t block individual electrons in transit to complete a fraudulent credit card charge. Endpoint security is always, has always been the weakest link, in practice, for actual crimes. For casual political censorship and to threaten law-abiding people, this top-level analytics is fine. “Don’t sell slaves on our platform. If we find you doing this we send your info to law enforcement.”
Please explain how it is not censorship.
Why would you not want to block slave adverts? Absolutist approach to freedom of speech?
I'm not stating that I am for or against anything. I'm asking how the blocking is not censorship. Why would you need to speculate anything further? Just answer the question rather than deflecting and redirecting to another question. (yes, i'm aware you're not the original person)
Different people have different opinions.
Sure, but sometimes, individual people hold contradictory opinions that should be occasionally examined.
In my experience this is rarely the case.
It's much more likely you're misunderstanding their position or missing some undisclosed nuance. Often I find this just comes down to most people lacking the vocabulary or ability to refine their positions consicely enough to form coherent and non contradictory positions.
If you take the time to work through their contrictory statements with them you'll likely find there was no contradiction in their mind, instead, there was just some nuance that got lost in translation.
It's much more likely you're misunderstanding their position or missing some undisclosed nuance. Often I find this just comes down to most people lacking the vocabulary or ability to refine their positions consicely enough to form coherent and non contradictory positions.
If you take the time to work through their contrictory statements with them you'll likely find there was no contradiction in their mind, instead, there was just some nuance that got lost in translation.
My experience has been the opposite; that people are great at making excuses for entirely contradictory sets of opinions they deeply hold.
This is usually a sign they don't really have the ability to define their position conscisely enough.
There are a lot of stupid people in the world, but most of them are able to see reason if a) they're willing, and b) you're willing to help them get there.
The problem is that you're probably not going to get the answer you want so you have little incentive to put in the effort.
There are a lot of stupid people in the world, but most of them are able to see reason if a) they're willing, and b) you're willing to help them get there.
The problem is that you're probably not going to get the answer you want so you have little incentive to put in the effort.
Perhaps, but HN incentivizes comments that will produce a reaction (votes, replies). You cannot read too much into what someone wrote here. "Facebook must censor all the things!" and "We need a decentralized Facebook so that censorship is impossible!" are not at odds with each other when the goal is to receive a reaction in return, assuming the author has found that those comments produce the reaction they seek.
When someone is being truly genuine, I do not believe you will find that contradiction. It is possible that you may not have entirely understood what they have written, and looking for clarification may be worthwhile. Still, given the above, it is not likely worth your time. In places where there is incentive to be genuine, more exploration can be worth it.
When someone is being truly genuine, I do not believe you will find that contradiction. It is possible that you may not have entirely understood what they have written, and looking for clarification may be worthwhile. Still, given the above, it is not likely worth your time. In places where there is incentive to be genuine, more exploration can be worth it.
FWIW I try to avoid working like that. Shouting into the void seems perverse to me, and I definitely enjoy having some signal of engagement and approval when I post something.
That said, I try to suspend my disbelief regarding the impossibility of fighting the current and so try to be a good citizen in order to maintain a good city. I'm sure Plato or Kant or has written extensively about this, and dang seemed to approve when I discussed it with him in a separate venue.
So now that I've spent lots of years lurking, some more years posting and plenty of time screaming into the darkness elsewhere, I can feel satisfied if I post something that I know is interesting or helpful, even if I don't get any external feedback.
(I'm reminded of the whole descent-to-madness that certain areas have academia have undergone for the sake of bibliometrics. See e.g. Peter Higgs' comments: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/dec/06/peter-higgs-... )
That said, I try to suspend my disbelief regarding the impossibility of fighting the current and so try to be a good citizen in order to maintain a good city. I'm sure Plato or Kant or has written extensively about this, and dang seemed to approve when I discussed it with him in a separate venue.
So now that I've spent lots of years lurking, some more years posting and plenty of time screaming into the darkness elsewhere, I can feel satisfied if I post something that I know is interesting or helpful, even if I don't get any external feedback.
(I'm reminded of the whole descent-to-madness that certain areas have academia have undergone for the sake of bibliometrics. See e.g. Peter Higgs' comments: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/dec/06/peter-higgs-... )
Yes, but I don't see any indication whatsoever that GGP had actually examined contradictory comments from the same users - just a general complaint based on a vague feeling.
HN is not one person. Some commenters want strict censorship to "protect the children" - That's the virtuous opinion to have in 2021 right? Some want a free and open internet with no censorship. One crowd is more annoyingly vocal than the other, so sometimes it seems like everyone here feels the same on certain topics.
Yep. Personally, I want a free and open internet. Mainly because I've noticed a trend where social media sites have started censoring anything except far-left opinions.
What are you talking about? You can find conservative voices all around Twitter and Facebook.
Other platforms exist. Reddit has been steadily clamping down on content they don’t agree with.
Perhaps the American Right is incompatible with a healthy society.
Which is why some of the most extreme ones are booted off of platforms - because they consistently break the rules that every user agreed to follow.
Which is why some of the most extreme ones are booted off of platforms - because they consistently break the rules that every user agreed to follow.
"American Right" you mean anyone that is more conservative than a dem party? That's an interesting opinion to hold...
The same party that calls anyone less conservative than them "socialists" and "communists" interchangeably.
"Conservative" isn't an accurate term for the American Right because in any other industrialized nation they would be considered an extremist party even by the conservatives. They are authoritarians doing their best to unravel democracy.
"Conservative" isn't an accurate term for the American Right because in any other industrialized nation they would be considered an extremist party even by the conservatives. They are authoritarians doing their best to unravel democracy.
Or perhaps people are tired of being beaten over the head with a constant stream of wokeness. Maybe people just want to live their lives without being told by society they’re a piece of trash for being white or a man.
One can find plenty of conservative content on Reddit, too. /r/Conservative/ for example. And there is healthy debate in /r/politics as well.
/r/politics is extremely left-leaning. It's only a matter of time before /r/conservative gets quarantined. I bet they're already planning it.
You're being downvoted, but what you say is objectively and demonstrably true. Unfortunately, the people it doesn't directly effect rarely hear about it from their news sources, so they rarely believe it to be true. Even more unfortunate is that it may indirectly effect them one day, because first they came for the conservatives...
What you're describing is a mainstream political position. Our last president talked about it constantly. Googling "big tech censorship" brings up tons of articles from mainstream media. Just a random sample:
WSJ: https://www.wsj.com/articles/big-tech-twitter-facebook-googl...
EFF: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/07/right-or-left-you-shou...
WSJ: https://www.wsj.com/articles/big-tech-twitter-facebook-googl...
EFF: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/07/right-or-left-you-shou...
It’s true. I’m centrist and I’ve noticed it.
You have been successfully propagandized.
Extreme right wing outlets dominate Facebook interactions almost every day. How is it possible to have a victim complex about something so obviously not true?
https://twitter.com/facebookstop10
Extreme right wing outlets dominate Facebook interactions almost every day. How is it possible to have a victim complex about something so obviously not true?
https://twitter.com/facebookstop10
I guess the difference that on one side you have an entity that can censor and does censor things where it's convenient for itself, but then turns a blind eye to other awful content that should be censored.
On the other side you've got a system where nothing can be censored, and while the lack of censorship of awful content is a drawback at least you have the advantage that nothing can be censored (even if it goes against corporate interests) to counter-balance it.
In short, one side only has drawbacks, while the other side at least brings some advantages to counter-balance those drawbacks.
On the other side you've got a system where nothing can be censored, and while the lack of censorship of awful content is a drawback at least you have the advantage that nothing can be censored (even if it goes against corporate interests) to counter-balance it.
In short, one side only has drawbacks, while the other side at least brings some advantages to counter-balance those drawbacks.
Do you really believe that Facebook is turning a blind eye to human trafficking? If so, I will send you .1 ETH if you can keep a fake human trafficking ad online for at least 24 hours.
Well, Facebook is happy to keep cybercrime groups around even after being notified of them: https://krebsonsecurity.com/2019/04/a-year-later-cybercrime-... so it isn't that far-fetched.
It would be very convenient for facebook to immediatly censor ALL violating ads... but so far, it is unsolved engineering problem
Maybe not an engineering problem then.
Have actual humans pre-screen all ads before allowing them?
Have actual humans pre-screen all ads before allowing them?
My guess would be that this is not feasible. It's probably tens of thousands of ads changes every second. Googling it, there are
720,000 hours of video uploaded every day to YouTube.. this is youtube but my guess is that the scale is similar...
It's not that it isn't feasible, it's that it's less profitable. It might even be unprofitable. If Facebook can't be profitable without facilitating slave trading, perhaps it should be allowed to go out of business. Any other business has liability for crime occurring on their premises, I don't see why tech giants should be exempt from that expectation.
Perhaps if car accidents can't be stopped we should ban cars?
It is my opinion that the up side contribution to society from facebook outweighs the inevitable downsides.
It is my opinion that the up side contribution to society from facebook outweighs the inevitable downsides.
I am having a hard time finding an upside contribution to society that Facebook is responsible for.
That's weird. Here are few examples: There are a lot of useful groups: group for weight loss, for various interest. Facebook helps me stay in touch with my relatives all over the world. On facebook I can find high quality (not as high as on HN though) discussions of recent news. Facebook market has some good things occasionally. I can use facebook to store my photos and more... all this is for free.
>at least you have the advantage that nothing can be censored
You can still censor by lowering visibility (flooding it with opposing content for example).
You can still censor by lowering visibility (flooding it with opposing content for example).
That's not censorship, either in theory or in practice.
"In theory" should be pretty obvious. "In practice" might require some explanation, because there seems to be a meme going around about trying to have another discussion with a person in a room where there are a bunch of people screaming at you to drown out your words. While that might be considered censorship in that exact scenario, that effect does not translate over into the internet - you simply block noisy sources on whatever platform you're on and keep reading the content that you're interested in. For instance, even though Matrix and Mastodon are federated, you can block users (and even entire servers) from either local visibility or even federation with your particular instance.
Similarly, nobody says that highly biased sites like the Verge, Vox, and the NYT are "censoring" opposing viewpoints because when you Google an issue all of the top results are from those sites with the same political bent - you can still craft Google queries that exclude those sites, one at a time.
"In theory" should be pretty obvious. "In practice" might require some explanation, because there seems to be a meme going around about trying to have another discussion with a person in a room where there are a bunch of people screaming at you to drown out your words. While that might be considered censorship in that exact scenario, that effect does not translate over into the internet - you simply block noisy sources on whatever platform you're on and keep reading the content that you're interested in. For instance, even though Matrix and Mastodon are federated, you can block users (and even entire servers) from either local visibility or even federation with your particular instance.
Similarly, nobody says that highly biased sites like the Verge, Vox, and the NYT are "censoring" opposing viewpoints because when you Google an issue all of the top results are from those sites with the same political bent - you can still craft Google queries that exclude those sites, one at a time.
You make a good argument. To me it still feels like you can "effectively" censor something by flooding its channel with crap. Maybe there is a technical way to filter away the the "noise", but it's unlikely that the audience will bother. If you DNS-block a site is that still not censorship, because you can still reach the site by IP (if you can find it out)?
I'm genuinely asking here, I think this is an interesting case and I'm not able to make my mind up.
I'm genuinely asking here, I think this is an interesting case and I'm not able to make my mind up.
I agree there is a tension — similar to how regulation to protect privacy also tends to reinforce monopolies.
However, in this case, sometimes it seems like Facebook wants to both be highly centralized and very powerful ("Just LOOK at how effective we are at convincing people to do things! Buy ads on Facebook!") and to also cede responsibility for some pretty abhorrent things that happen on its platform.
If you centralize, you own the platform - the good & the bad.
It feels unjust to reap massive profits and then hand-off all the social ills you cause.
I think this is more of a philosophic POV rather than a legally enforceable one (at least in the US today), but probably gets at some of the frustration people have with Facebook.
However, in this case, sometimes it seems like Facebook wants to both be highly centralized and very powerful ("Just LOOK at how effective we are at convincing people to do things! Buy ads on Facebook!") and to also cede responsibility for some pretty abhorrent things that happen on its platform.
If you centralize, you own the platform - the good & the bad.
It feels unjust to reap massive profits and then hand-off all the social ills you cause.
I think this is more of a philosophic POV rather than a legally enforceable one (at least in the US today), but probably gets at some of the frustration people have with Facebook.
Yes. This is why all the people that copy-pasta "you're wrong about section 230"[1] on HN are missing the point. Even if the law doesn't say "Once a company like that starts moderating content, it's no longer a platform, but a publisher" - that's still a moral position that many people (including me) take.
Like you said, "If you centralize, you own the platform - the good & the bad." and I would extend that to "You can either choose moderation or waiving liability, but not both, because that's morally wrong (or, selfish/inconsistent/harmful/unfair)."
[1] https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello...
Like you said, "If you centralize, you own the platform - the good & the bad." and I would extend that to "You can either choose moderation or waiving liability, but not both, because that's morally wrong (or, selfish/inconsistent/harmful/unfair)."
[1] https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello...
I don't think people like that are missing the point. AFAIK the concept of platforms vs. publishers with regard to liability comes from a misunderstanding of S230. Some people got attached to the idea and have backfilled a moral position, but I still think it's worth pointing out that it stems from a misunderstanding.
To me, the position that a platform cannot morally moderate some content without incurring liability for all other content is rather extreme and the precepts are non-obvious. Presumably you mean moral liability rather than legal liability? Can you elaborate on the precepts here?
* what does moral liability mean? is the platform equally morally liable as the poster, or is the liability split between them? * where does this liability attach? how big do you have to be, or how much of a hand to you have to play in dissemination of content to incur moral liability? * and finally, why does choosing to moderate some content but not others change the moral calculus? This is totally non-obvious to me and TBH doesn't make a lot of sense.
To me, the position that a platform cannot morally moderate some content without incurring liability for all other content is rather extreme and the precepts are non-obvious. Presumably you mean moral liability rather than legal liability? Can you elaborate on the precepts here?
* what does moral liability mean? is the platform equally morally liable as the poster, or is the liability split between them? * where does this liability attach? how big do you have to be, or how much of a hand to you have to play in dissemination of content to incur moral liability? * and finally, why does choosing to moderate some content but not others change the moral calculus? This is totally non-obvious to me and TBH doesn't make a lot of sense.
I'd like to hear more about why it would be a moral failing to moderate content without assuming liability. If this were codified into law it would on a practical level eliminate the possibility of moderation in many cases. That feels like a net loss to me, since I'd like to remain able to visit online spaces with the expectation that I won't be served certain kinds of content (hate speech, animal slaughtering, smaller things like political positions I find objectionable after I've had a hard day and just want to relax, whatever).
That doesn't mean it's moral, I suppose, but it feels like an uphill battle to prove that it's not. What are the harms that derive from allowing platforms to moderate without assuming liability? What's the alternative? Either they lock down everything and have human moderators approve all speech submitted to the platform, which seems draconian and expensive, or they let everything through, which reduces the usefulness of the platform and forces them to host evil content or content that may cause more harm than good (e.g. medical disinformation). Either one seems worse than allowing moderation while waiving liability.
Further, this flies in the face of moral custom. Although there can be legal penalties under some scenarios, we generally don't find people very much at fault for illegal acts that take place in spaces they control unless they had knowledge of or participated in those acts. If my fiancee starts dealing drugs out of my house, and keeps it secret to me, I shouldn't be on the hook for that. And yet I can choose to "moderate" who does or does not live in my house.
What's different here? Facebook owns the space, would prefer not to serve hate speech, and 99.9% of its users would prefer not to be served hate speech. What's the harm? What moral principle should prevent them from doing so?
Finally, what about sub-platforms moderated by users? Can reddit morally allow subreddits to moderate? If they can't, so much the worse; but if they can how is that different in principle from reddit doing the moderating?
That doesn't mean it's moral, I suppose, but it feels like an uphill battle to prove that it's not. What are the harms that derive from allowing platforms to moderate without assuming liability? What's the alternative? Either they lock down everything and have human moderators approve all speech submitted to the platform, which seems draconian and expensive, or they let everything through, which reduces the usefulness of the platform and forces them to host evil content or content that may cause more harm than good (e.g. medical disinformation). Either one seems worse than allowing moderation while waiving liability.
Further, this flies in the face of moral custom. Although there can be legal penalties under some scenarios, we generally don't find people very much at fault for illegal acts that take place in spaces they control unless they had knowledge of or participated in those acts. If my fiancee starts dealing drugs out of my house, and keeps it secret to me, I shouldn't be on the hook for that. And yet I can choose to "moderate" who does or does not live in my house.
What's different here? Facebook owns the space, would prefer not to serve hate speech, and 99.9% of its users would prefer not to be served hate speech. What's the harm? What moral principle should prevent them from doing so?
Finally, what about sub-platforms moderated by users? Can reddit morally allow subreddits to moderate? If they can't, so much the worse; but if they can how is that different in principle from reddit doing the moderating?
I don't think this is reasonable because it seems to place enormous regulatory burdens on almost all businesses depending on how you define moderation. For example, if I am a physical business that has a code of conduct banning certain behavior (which I would say is analogous to moderation), am I now liable whenever someone doesn't adhere to it and I don't catch it? If I am a small forum, am I now liable for policing potentially hundreds of users if I have any sort of eula?
"I'm opposed to slavery advertised on Facebook, but willing to tolerate it on decentralized platforms" is a fair and consistent statement, but doesn't sound like the kind of rallying cry that brings out pitchforks. It's not about human trafficking, it's about who should control the internet. Doesn't this seem a little disingenuous, or at least warrant dialing back the outrage knob a little?
The "publisher vs platform" distinction has been sitting weirdly with me, lately.
The canonical examples of each are newspaper (publisher) vs newsstand (platform), but if I am running a newsstand and I choose not to carry the Times, that doesn't make me liable for the content of the Bugle.
The canonical examples of each are newspaper (publisher) vs newsstand (platform), but if I am running a newsstand and I choose not to carry the Times, that doesn't make me liable for the content of the Bugle.
Well put, this is a great summary. I’m starting to think how we scorn at oil companies for spilling oil in the gulf, give them a small slap on the wrist for environmental damage, and yet these adtech behemoths continue to erode society, mutual trust, democracy and social well-being while reaping enormous amount of profits. No slap on the wrist, but a mild stare at best.
Getting down voted because you spoke the truth it seems?
Complaining about downvotes is explicitly discouraged on HN: "Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading."[1]
I didn't downvote GP - indeed, I can't, as it's a reply to my comment. My guess for why it was downvoted is because it's not directly connected to my point. I was trying to say "with great power comes great responsibility", but it's not clear that that principle is necessarily being violated with the examples given by GP.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
I didn't downvote GP - indeed, I can't, as it's a reply to my comment. My guess for why it was downvoted is because it's not directly connected to my point. I was trying to say "with great power comes great responsibility", but it's not clear that that principle is necessarily being violated with the examples given by GP.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
...unjust to reap massive profits and then hand-off all the social ills you cause...
That is my take on AI/auto content moderation and the enforcement - they can't have it both ways; centralized platform, with no responsibilities.
So - hire people. Actual human beings - train them and hire large numbers from many demographic and geographic locations.
But - this would cut into profits.
That is my take on AI/auto content moderation and the enforcement - they can't have it both ways; centralized platform, with no responsibilities.
So - hire people. Actual human beings - train them and hire large numbers from many demographic and geographic locations.
But - this would cut into profits.
If more people would automatically solve the problem, it would already be solved. Facebook hires like crazy, and it's integrity org is massive...
>integrity org is massive
Because the userbase is so ludicrously big "Massive" doesn't really convey the level of staffing in relative terms.
How many posts does the network have per moderator-workday?
Because the userbase is so ludicrously big "Massive" doesn't really convey the level of staffing in relative terms.
How many posts does the network have per moderator-workday?
This is the question to people who accuse facebook of negligence. It's basically guilty unless proven innocent. But why not switch the roles?
What is the number for integrity, that you think would solve the problem and why? how so this compares to other companies and facebook. Luckily we have so many social networks we can do statistics?
And then, vefore you know this, and the problem at hand, maybe you should suspend your harsh judgment?
What is the number for integrity, that you think would solve the problem and why? how so this compares to other companies and facebook. Luckily we have so many social networks we can do statistics?
And then, vefore you know this, and the problem at hand, maybe you should suspend your harsh judgment?
To answer my own question, apparently this Dublin-based, outsourced moderator does around 100 tickets a day. The work is psychologically scarring:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-57088382
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/31/technology/facebook-accen...
>...15,000 people whom Facebook has said it has hired to inspect its posts.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-57088382
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/31/technology/facebook-accen...
>...15,000 people whom Facebook has said it has hired to inspect its posts.
IMO, that does not it really answer anything. It's just one date point.
How many similar contractors are there, say what about India?
Another thing, the moderation is a combination of ml technique and human, the next question is how much load ML takes a way from human operator. How efficient are their tools?
What is recall and precision of removing violent content?
How does this compare with other social networks?
How much moderation is done organically by users?
How many similar contractors are there, say what about India?
Another thing, the moderation is a combination of ml technique and human, the next question is how much load ML takes a way from human operator. How efficient are their tools?
What is recall and precision of removing violent content?
How does this compare with other social networks?
How much moderation is done organically by users?
Ah, ok - but - then, do employees actually have the mandate to change anything? I have seen a few articles that basically seem to indicate the only way that things change are because of whistleblowers or investigations. Doesn't sound very proactive.
It is very well known within the industry that facebook employees have a lot of power to change things: "Move fast and break things", "be bold" etc.. It is very open and democratic company. I'd guess that employees at facebook have much more power than say in google, let alone in apple.
i know first hand that facebook has tried repeatedly to solve problems with computers they KNOW can be solved by humans, but humans are more expensive.
its about money, not the lack of ability.
its about money, not the lack of ability.
Everything is about money. If you yourself is middle class in a western country. Than you can sell your house buy a smaller one and buy back a few women that are now sold to slavery, or donate money to orgs that fight this, give me good reason why you do not do this?
How massive? Like actual Amazon delivery/warehouse workforce sized massive? Or just a small org?
I'm gonna assume the latter. And forget about 'massive', they clearly don't even want to hire enough to make it decently large.
Tech companies are fine hiring people when they can't just push the costs (social and monetary) onto others. But Facebook thinks it can - so it is.
I'm gonna assume the latter. And forget about 'massive', they clearly don't even want to hire enough to make it decently large.
Tech companies are fine hiring people when they can't just push the costs (social and monetary) onto others. But Facebook thinks it can - so it is.
I haven't actually gone through the math, but my gut tells me the amount of human moderation that would make people happy, basically having a human look at every potentially bad post, is so high that Facebook wouldn't be profitable. The only company that's solved moderation at scale is Reddit. It punted the problem to unpaid moderators, so Reddit only needs to moderate the existence of subreddits, not posts.
The problem with this "moral" expectation you want to put Facebook or any company in a social space under is that it's self-contradictory and hypocritical. I don't know any reasonable person who would want the phone company, a very centralized system, to play the role of morality police over who can use the telephone and who can't. This "Centralization = ownership of everyone's actions" view just imposes the burden of a mass of cultural expectations on companies that never agreed to any of it.
I don't blame ISPs for the content of the internet. I do blame Facebook for what happens on their platform though, because unlike a telephone carrier or ISP, Facebook's entire purpose is to get me to interact with content.
If you got food that made you sick, do you blame the delivery service or the restaurant?
If the business is ads, data, and eyeballs, you should be responsible for what is on it.
If you got food that made you sick, do you blame the delivery service or the restaurant?
If the business is ads, data, and eyeballs, you should be responsible for what is on it.
>I don't blame ISPs for the content of the internet. I do blame Facebook for what happens on their platform though, because unlike a telephone carrier or ISP, Facebook's entire purpose is to get me to interact with content.
Then why blame Facebook? Almost all the content on Facebook is user-generated. And don't think ISPs don't bank on getting you interact with content as though they're perfectly neutral platforms.
>If you got food that made you sick, do you blame the delivery service or the restaurant?
If it's a restaurant where the average joe can be a chef, then I blame particular person who cooked my meal. Not the restaurant (who only provided the facilities and menu) or the delivery service.
>If the business is ads, data, and eyeballs, you should be responsible for what is on it.
Only to the extent it's own ads are false. Beyond that, their is no duty for to police content in accordance with the desires of others. Information does not imply obligation.
Then why blame Facebook? Almost all the content on Facebook is user-generated. And don't think ISPs don't bank on getting you interact with content as though they're perfectly neutral platforms.
>If you got food that made you sick, do you blame the delivery service or the restaurant?
If it's a restaurant where the average joe can be a chef, then I blame particular person who cooked my meal. Not the restaurant (who only provided the facilities and menu) or the delivery service.
>If the business is ads, data, and eyeballs, you should be responsible for what is on it.
Only to the extent it's own ads are false. Beyond that, their is no duty for to police content in accordance with the desires of others. Information does not imply obligation.
By that logic, any nation's government is also highly centralized and even more powerful. Are politicians complicit with human trafficking because it exists within their nation's borders?
The logic says yes, they are complicit to the extent that the government is powerful enough to intervene (granting this level of power is typically at odds with other values we hold) and to the extent that specifically politicians bear responsibility for the behavior of the government (as opposed to the people or organizations that empowered them).
Most politicians have less power over their country than Zuckerberg has over Facebook. Degree of complicity adjusts a bit with knowledge & actual power to address.
But yes. People who have the power to fix something unjust and don't are complicit in that thing.
But yes. People who have the power to fix something unjust and don't are complicit in that thing.
[deleted]
>The zeitgeist of HN is white hot outrage that this content can be found on Facebook/Google/etc, yet also to champion decentralized sharing systems which would make this sort of content uncensorable.
>Can someone explain this to me?
I don't think there's any contradiction.
People on HN think slavery is bad because the enslaved person is forced to do work they don't want to; they don't have a Right To Walk Away[1] from their job. This means their pay and conditions are a lot worse than they would be if they could walk away form being enslaved.
And people on HN think Big Social Media is bad for roughly the same reason: in practical terms, there is no Right To Walk Away. Sure, you could build your own Facebook or Twitter (and many people on HN certainly have the skill to do so), but because of network effects it'll get nowhere. That's why decentralisation/interoperability with things like ActivityPub is attractive, and why it would be even better if the government mandated that all websites with user-generated content allowed such interoperability.
1: https://pontifex.substack.com/p/the-right-to-walk-away
>Can someone explain this to me?
I don't think there's any contradiction.
People on HN think slavery is bad because the enslaved person is forced to do work they don't want to; they don't have a Right To Walk Away[1] from their job. This means their pay and conditions are a lot worse than they would be if they could walk away form being enslaved.
And people on HN think Big Social Media is bad for roughly the same reason: in practical terms, there is no Right To Walk Away. Sure, you could build your own Facebook or Twitter (and many people on HN certainly have the skill to do so), but because of network effects it'll get nowhere. That's why decentralisation/interoperability with things like ActivityPub is attractive, and why it would be even better if the government mandated that all websites with user-generated content allowed such interoperability.
1: https://pontifex.substack.com/p/the-right-to-walk-away
I think it's two groups, or at least two ideologies.
There's a very large streak of what I think of as hyperindividualism: I do what I want. It's not stated, but in practice it implies that any downstream negative consequences to others are negligible or even morally necessary. This predominates especially when the bulk of the audience sees themselves in the powerful person in the story.
There's also a strong streak of what I'd call compassionate individualism, where people identify with the less powerful person in the story. This can involve moral outrage on their behalf, and generally includes a more nuanced balancing of the individual rights of different people.
A good example is how HN talks about rising tech companies versus very dominant ones. On the way up, we tend to identify with the entrepreneur-CEOs in charge. But once they're large enough to harm either the HN audience or the tech ecosystem, the narrative tends to switch. E.g., Microsoft as the evil empire, or the way Google, Apple, and Facebook get a lot more skepticism. Often it's the same people and the same behaviors, it's just that we're at the sharp end of the stick.
So here it's Facebook and slavery. Given that most of us don't intend to keep slaves and we've become suspicious of FB's power, it's easy to identify with the slaves. But phrase it as an abstract issue in distributed systems and censorship resistance, and people will identify with the engineer/rebel character.
There's a very large streak of what I think of as hyperindividualism: I do what I want. It's not stated, but in practice it implies that any downstream negative consequences to others are negligible or even morally necessary. This predominates especially when the bulk of the audience sees themselves in the powerful person in the story.
There's also a strong streak of what I'd call compassionate individualism, where people identify with the less powerful person in the story. This can involve moral outrage on their behalf, and generally includes a more nuanced balancing of the individual rights of different people.
A good example is how HN talks about rising tech companies versus very dominant ones. On the way up, we tend to identify with the entrepreneur-CEOs in charge. But once they're large enough to harm either the HN audience or the tech ecosystem, the narrative tends to switch. E.g., Microsoft as the evil empire, or the way Google, Apple, and Facebook get a lot more skepticism. Often it's the same people and the same behaviors, it's just that we're at the sharp end of the stick.
So here it's Facebook and slavery. Given that most of us don't intend to keep slaves and we've become suspicious of FB's power, it's easy to identify with the slaves. But phrase it as an abstract issue in distributed systems and censorship resistance, and people will identify with the engineer/rebel character.
I roughly agree with your classification. Although last year it seemed to be quite mixed as any threat mentioning black people protesting seemed to almost invariably yield some looting based retort as if there is no possibility the two are done by different groups of people over different time periods.
For sure. I think that's also frequently operates through who the speaker identifies with in the story.
We are humans. We want to keep our cake, but eat it too. As long as we can talk in isolation about just one issue, we don’t have to face the paradox.
/insert satire tag here/
Now if we could just coordinate this better. On even days we can do liberal thinking, and odd days socially conscious thinking.
/close satire/
/insert satire tag here/
Now if we could just coordinate this better. On even days we can do liberal thinking, and odd days socially conscious thinking.
/close satire/
Maybe you can use monopace/code formatting for sarcasm?
In any case most code I read here seems to be intended sarcastically.[deleted]
This confusion comes from people trying to fit Facebook/Google etc. (I'll just say Facebook from now on) into "old world" concepts. There seem to be two different views of what Facebook is: some see it as a public square, others see it as a publication. But these are both wrong.
Facebook clearly isn't a public square. It's a platform with a dictator/censor/moderator who controls what is and isn't allowed on the platform. It also seems to be much more susceptible to groupthink, misinformation and extreme viewpoints than a real public square.
But Facebook isn't a publication either. When arguing against free speech on Facebook, some people compare it to newspapers and you'll hear arguments like "the New York Times isn't obliged to publish your article". But that's not what's happening here. Facebook operates more of a blacklist than a whitelist. Nobody thinks of the NYT as explicitly rejecting all but a select few people's writings, but they do think of Facebook as explicitly allowing whatever thing currently offends them.
So what is it? What should it be? These are questions we have to answer for ourselves. Applying rules from constitutions written 400 years ago might not be wise. But moving public discourse on to privately owned platforms is probably not wise either. I think the only thing that's clear right now is something is wrong.
Facebook clearly isn't a public square. It's a platform with a dictator/censor/moderator who controls what is and isn't allowed on the platform. It also seems to be much more susceptible to groupthink, misinformation and extreme viewpoints than a real public square.
But Facebook isn't a publication either. When arguing against free speech on Facebook, some people compare it to newspapers and you'll hear arguments like "the New York Times isn't obliged to publish your article". But that's not what's happening here. Facebook operates more of a blacklist than a whitelist. Nobody thinks of the NYT as explicitly rejecting all but a select few people's writings, but they do think of Facebook as explicitly allowing whatever thing currently offends them.
So what is it? What should it be? These are questions we have to answer for ourselves. Applying rules from constitutions written 400 years ago might not be wise. But moving public discourse on to privately owned platforms is probably not wise either. I think the only thing that's clear right now is something is wrong.
> The zeitgeist of HN is white hot outrage that this content can be found on Facebook/Google/etc
Here's hoping that the white hot outrage is shared by most everyone on the planet and is independent of where it can be found.
That is not really an answer to your question.
Here's hoping that the white hot outrage is shared by most everyone on the planet and is independent of where it can be found.
That is not really an answer to your question.
> champion decentralized sharing systems which would make this sort of content uncensorable.
Decentralization does not make illegal content uncensorable, in fact the opposite is true, because regular citizens and small organizations hosting individual nodes are exposed to a lot more risk and legal liability than a massive tech giant. These gigantic centralized networks allow this type of content to hide in plain sight because something like Facebook is "too big to fail" and won't ever be shutdown regardless of how many times illegal content is re-uploaded to the platform.
Decentralization does not make illegal content uncensorable, in fact the opposite is true, because regular citizens and small organizations hosting individual nodes are exposed to a lot more risk and legal liability than a massive tech giant. These gigantic centralized networks allow this type of content to hide in plain sight because something like Facebook is "too big to fail" and won't ever be shutdown regardless of how many times illegal content is re-uploaded to the platform.
Cunningham's Law dictates that I must mention, there are many decentralized systems in which content cannot simply said to be hosted on one node or another.
If I use the Chinese Remainder theorem to distribute data to five hosts, such that you need to get the data from three of them to reconstruct the file, which one is hosting it?
And what if it's encrypted so that the host couldn't read the data anyway?
If I use the Chinese Remainder theorem to distribute data to five hosts, such that you need to get the data from three of them to reconstruct the file, which one is hosting it?
And what if it's encrypted so that the host couldn't read the data anyway?
> If I use the Chinese Remainder theorem to distribute data to five hosts, such that you need to get the data from three of them to reconstruct the file, which one is hosting it?
This kind of technical obfuscation won't stymie a judge, the owners of all five nodes would be held liable if they were instrumental in facilitating access to the illegal material.
> And what if it's encrypted so that the host couldn't read the data anyway?
This isn't really a practical setup for a social media website. If the host can't decrypt the data then the social media users won't be able to do so either. People could share illegal content in some kind of private E2EE group chat like Signal, but in such a scenario decentralization is of no relevance since the buck stops at E2EE either way.
This kind of technical obfuscation won't stymie a judge, the owners of all five nodes would be held liable if they were instrumental in facilitating access to the illegal material.
> And what if it's encrypted so that the host couldn't read the data anyway?
This isn't really a practical setup for a social media website. If the host can't decrypt the data then the social media users won't be able to do so either. People could share illegal content in some kind of private E2EE group chat like Signal, but in such a scenario decentralization is of no relevance since the buck stops at E2EE either way.
But they aren't instrumental! Maybe only four actually sent the file, and even a judge can be made to understand that one of those was superfluous. If you want to make it even less clear, then imagine that the client is told they can download chunks from ten peers, of which five have relevant data, if which any three are sufficient. So someone comes along and downloads eight random chunks and reconstructs the bad file. If you are required to prove that a particular peer infringed a copyright by distributing a protected work, or a work derived therefrom I think you could have a hard time.
I'm not sure I understand your second objection. Suppose I publish a "status" including some copyrighted work and I encrypt it such that you need a private key corresponding to the private key of anyone on my friends list to decrypt. Then it's distributed among a thousand peers (who are not my friends), such that one of my friends can download from a random twenty, receive garbage from ten, and they'll have a 30% change of being able to reconstruct the encrypted file. Can you now prove that on the balance of probabilities a peer has violated the copyright?
I'm not sure I understand your second objection. Suppose I publish a "status" including some copyrighted work and I encrypt it such that you need a private key corresponding to the private key of anyone on my friends list to decrypt. Then it's distributed among a thousand peers (who are not my friends), such that one of my friends can download from a random twenty, receive garbage from ten, and they'll have a 30% change of being able to reconstruct the encrypted file. Can you now prove that on the balance of probabilities a peer has violated the copyright?
> Can someone explain this to me?
Sure. Start with this: your perception of the “zeitgeist on HN” is based on the loudest commenters, but on different issues those are different sets of commenters. So, yeah, the zeitgeist of the subset of HN engaged by icky posts on Instagram is different than the zeitgeist of the subset engaged by decentralized sharing systems.
Second, where there is overlap, tribalism plays a role, and “anti-big-corp” alignment fits both stances you point to.
Sure. Start with this: your perception of the “zeitgeist on HN” is based on the loudest commenters, but on different issues those are different sets of commenters. So, yeah, the zeitgeist of the subset of HN engaged by icky posts on Instagram is different than the zeitgeist of the subset engaged by decentralized sharing systems.
Second, where there is overlap, tribalism plays a role, and “anti-big-corp” alignment fits both stances you point to.
well this is like saying we're gonna ban chemistry because people are gonna make meth (or whatever drug)
Outrage creeps in, but it's not really a good fit for here and I wish we'd get a bit better about posting and biting ragebait.
I think there are several different ideological clusters on in regarding "information freedom"-type ideas. Having just one would be no fun, and a bad reflection of the community. I'm no libertarian, but I think that that trying to censor away the problem is inevitably not going to stop the problems described. It will make them less visible though, and maybe push them to other platforms. It's more of a "moving the homeless on" solution, and similarly it's good for the individual service providers, but bad for the society as a whole.
Hence I think you can be unhappy that the content exists, but still not approve of online censorship.
I think there are several different ideological clusters on in regarding "information freedom"-type ideas. Having just one would be no fun, and a bad reflection of the community. I'm no libertarian, but I think that that trying to censor away the problem is inevitably not going to stop the problems described. It will make them less visible though, and maybe push them to other platforms. It's more of a "moving the homeless on" solution, and similarly it's good for the individual service providers, but bad for the society as a whole.
Hence I think you can be unhappy that the content exists, but still not approve of online censorship.
This is a serious issue but it still reminds me of Ricky Gervais' masterpiece of a joke about Apple's TV drama about the importance of dignity and doing the right thing.
I would have preferred they pull the plug until Facebook complied but that isn’t really how business is done (and that is easy for me to say because I don’t use the Facebook app.)
I think that one year off Facebook is going to improve anyone's life. There are infinite other ways to communicate with the people we care no matter how far away they are.
Is almost as if we need a group of elected officials to create laws for this new digital world so that for profit, multi national, corporations do not and should not have to take matters into their own hands
1cvmask(1)
baybal2(1)
Americans love to beat each other up over the legacy of slavery, sexism, and related - but it's so strange to me how unpassionate? many of the same people are about what's happening now elsewhere in the world. I wish we could do more to help people now no matter where.
US slavery was different than most historical and present day forms of forced labor. Slavery was called the “peculiar institution” because it was unique in the condition of slavery being inherited.
As for feminism, the western world spent trillions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives trying to bring gender equality to Afghanistan. Truly the western world would be better off using soft power to create a more equal world instead of bombing people in to a culture of tolerance.
As for feminism, the western world spent trillions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives trying to bring gender equality to Afghanistan. Truly the western world would be better off using soft power to create a more equal world instead of bombing people in to a culture of tolerance.
How do you know that only US slavery was "different" in the "condition of slavery being inherited"? Have you investigated all other forms of slavery all over the world? Especially since there are more people in slavery now than ever before?
==As for feminism, the western world spent trillions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives trying to bring gender equality to Afghanistan.==
Are you claiming that the purpose of the Afghanistan war was to promote feminism? I don't remember that sales pitch. It's certainly one way to make a useless war sound noble.
Are you claiming that the purpose of the Afghanistan war was to promote feminism? I don't remember that sales pitch. It's certainly one way to make a useless war sound noble.
That was not the purpose of the Afghanistan war, but it did happen incidentally.
> As for feminism, the western world spent trillions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives trying to bring gender equality to Afghanistan.
Was that why we were there? Was it really?
Was that why we were there? Was it really?
It was called the "peculiar institution" because (by then) it was peculiar to one portion of the country.
What the hell are you talking about? There's nothing unique about that to the US. I would argue slavery in the US was far less brutal than that of the ancient Arab world and Rome
Slaves in the Arab/Ottoman world could purchase their freedom, were not enslaved by race (rather as POWs), their children were free, had some legal protection, and had the potential for upward mobility (in rare cases slaves that became viziers, ministers, or kings). Also Arab society post-Islam highly encouraged freeing slaves (considered a major virtue/source of reward/form of penance).
May be more accurate to say slavery in the US was less brutal than slavery in the French Caribbean or Spanish Argentina.
May be more accurate to say slavery in the US was less brutal than slavery in the French Caribbean or Spanish Argentina.
> I would argue slavery in the US was far less brutal than that of the ancient Arab world and Rome
And your evidence to support that is..?
There were essentially no limits to the brutality that could be inflected on a slave in the US, so any brutality that you find in the ancient world is easily matched by a brutality inflected in the US.
And your evidence to support that is..?
There were essentially no limits to the brutality that could be inflected on a slave in the US, so any brutality that you find in the ancient world is easily matched by a brutality inflected in the US.
And it isn't like those women were freed from captivity once the "apps were pulled" or the instagram accounts closed. If the same crime was committed against money the response would be a lot swifter.
What are you trying to argue here? That Apple should just be fine with it?
Absolutely not, rather than just _close_ their access, FB and Insta are clearly already a honeypot. The governments and tech should use it to roll up every trafficking operation until the slave traders find another place, then they should get them there.
It's almost as if signalling in itself is more valuable than actual action or results. And ofc. no one is ready to sacrifice anything, like stopping buying cheap or even expensive goods...
> signalling in itself is more valuable than actual action or results
Apple privately threatening to ban Facebook is virtue signalling?
Apple privately threatening to ban Facebook is virtue signalling?
I would take company more seriously if they didn't keep manufacturing in plants with questionable practises...
[deleted]
love to beat themselves up. It's only upper middle class white people you hear it from, and it's pathetic.
Apple are hypocrites.
It's obvious that traffickers use any means to ply their trade, be it in people, drugs and other illegal activities. They will use FB, IG and apple solutions.
But Apple talks the talk about exploitation but keeps seeking the China market and continues to leverage Chinese manufacturing knowing well that China engages in activities that were they done in any US state or Western country, Apple would have a fit and would threaten to pull offices, staff and cease doing business as well as contributing to local opposition voices because they want to be part of the change--but they do none of that in China and, in effect, add the the problem.
Anyway, are Apple going to now refuse to sell phones to traffickers or run of the mill felons too lest they enable these baddies?
It's obvious that traffickers use any means to ply their trade, be it in people, drugs and other illegal activities. They will use FB, IG and apple solutions.
But Apple talks the talk about exploitation but keeps seeking the China market and continues to leverage Chinese manufacturing knowing well that China engages in activities that were they done in any US state or Western country, Apple would have a fit and would threaten to pull offices, staff and cease doing business as well as contributing to local opposition voices because they want to be part of the change--but they do none of that in China and, in effect, add the the problem.
Anyway, are Apple going to now refuse to sell phones to traffickers or run of the mill felons too lest they enable these baddies?
If by "activities" you mean slavery/forced labour. Then you should make a distinction between US and other western countries. The US constitution allows for forced labour as a punishment in prison, and is also readily used, with at least 18% of inmates "employed" by UNICOR. If you wish to morally object to forced labour in other countries, it falls flat on my ears if you imply that it is "as opposed to how US conducts itself".
That said, China is doing bad stuff, checks out. Apple is complicit in benefiting from it, sure. So this isn't an objection to that, just to the "that wouldn't fly in the US"-hypocrisy.
That said, China is doing bad stuff, checks out. Apple is complicit in benefiting from it, sure. So this isn't an objection to that, just to the "that wouldn't fly in the US"-hypocrisy.
Agreed. But there is a very important difference. In China you don't have to be convicted of a crime to be sent to labor camps/re-education camps. I think that's an important difference.
You know that people in the US can spend a year in jail waiting for their trial, right? People keep making up arbitrary reasons why US=good and other country=bad just to justify their existing belief.
And what about forced education for children in the US? Nobody bats an eye at that, except the victims themselves.
And what about forced education for children in the US? Nobody bats an eye at that, except the victims themselves.
Nowhere did I say anything about good or bad. That’s you making judgements.
All I’m saying is Apple says one thing in one context and another in a different one, but they are not dissimilar so in effect they are hypocrites and don’t mean what they say and their values are relative.
Oh bad bad exploitation! Oh, but in China… never mind, we’ll just mind our own business…
All I’m saying is Apple says one thing in one context and another in a different one, but they are not dissimilar so in effect they are hypocrites and don’t mean what they say and their values are relative.
Oh bad bad exploitation! Oh, but in China… never mind, we’ll just mind our own business…
You said that being convicted before being imprisoned was an important difference. Maybe you didn't mean good vs bad but I'm claiming that difference is neither important nor even exists. It's just arbitrarily made up to put a dividing line between China and the US. No matter how similar two countries are, you can always find some difference and claim that it's important.
I agree that Apple and all the other big techs say contradictory moral nonsense. They're just trying to please the public but the public itself has internally contradictory standards even with the same individuals so it's impossible for Apple to really make any sense unless it's willing to alienate everyone.
I agree that Apple and all the other big techs say contradictory moral nonsense. They're just trying to please the public but the public itself has internally contradictory standards even with the same individuals so it's impossible for Apple to really make any sense unless it's willing to alienate everyone.
From a philosophical point of view, the difference isn't as big as you might think. After all, "convicted of a crime" is arbitrarily defined by the ruling party. And the US is no champion of a morally correct implementation.
[deleted]
There are some NGOs like IJM who have teams of analysts that scout for trafficking victims on Facebook all day. It's largely a manual process that requires infiltrating public groups and connecting with suspicious profiles. Oftentimes, it's just strange dogwhistles to look out for like profiles of young women that say "Frycook at the Krusty Krab."
I helped build an app for an anti-human trafficking hackathon (we dubbed it "The Creeper Crawler") that scraped abusive profiles. I think ML could be a powerful tool for flagging these profiles, but this is a larger moderation problem I see no easy solution to.