Am I the only person who has a problem with this headline, "Ad Boycott of Facebook Keeps Growing" am I overreacting here or others feel the same?
For me at the face of it's not incorrect, but it feels to me a certain deliberate wordsmithing is used to create a sense of growing momentum.
What we don't know if these advertisers represent 1%, more or less than x% of Facebook's ad revenue. I do understand FB will not provide that info, but some real journalism and follow up from said companies could have gathered us the amount this boycott means. After all this suppose to be NYT.
They do touch on this number, "smaller businesses that make up the bulk of its eight million advertisers have been considering their options"
However, again they are carefully crafting their words in a way that it's not inaccurate but showing a larger problem.
Instead of saying "one agency that manages 20 clients", or "we have heard from some advertisers" using "one agency", or "some advertisers" they are saying "advertisers" which to some readers will read as a lot of advertisers or a universal movement among advertisers.
What’s more, the NY Times has a strong business interest in convincing advertisers not to advertise on Facebook. I’m a bit skeptical of anything they publish these days about Facebook, Google, and other companies that could potentially threaten their access to clicks, just given their financial incentives to weaken these companies as much as possible.
Do you prefer "Ad Boycott of Facebook Kind of Growing"?
Or "Ad Boycott of Facebook Growing Slowly"?
Or "Ad Boycott of Facebook: The Details"
It is growing, the details are accurate in the article, and I can't think of a headline that has zero editorial information in it. If they don't run any story, then they risk the opposite criticism: why didn't you tell us?!
You should worry more about the media that philosophically rejects the notion of objective reality.
What we don't know if these advertisers represent 1%, more or less than x% of Facebook's ad revenue.
Does it matter?
If two advertisers quit on Monday, and four more quit on Tuesday, and six more quit on Wednesday, that is growing momentum.
Is there a codified percentage of revenue where a newspaper is suddenly allowed (by Facebook?) to write about things? Can you provide a link?
HN-types like to jump on the mass media for not noticing trends soon enough. Then they jump on the mass media for noticing trends too soon. Make up your hive mind.
I find it so funny that Facebook hides behind "freedom of speech" when in fact what they do is the exact opposite.
When everything you saw was cronological, you could make that argument. I write a message on my wall and everyone who follows me can see it if they scroll down far enough. Most importantly, the only criteria used was the time it was submitted which I think everyone can agree is fair.
By prioritizing certain posts based on what the algorithm thinks will make you stay on the site longer, they are prioritizing, thus interfering with free speech. When I post something, my message will have a lower chance of reaching some of my followers. How can facebook justify tipping the scales for one type of message over another and call it free?
Serious questions: Are the people that work at Facebook proud to work there? What is morale like inside that place? When someone asks you what you do, and you say "I work for Facebook," what is their typical reaction?
Not trying to be snarky. I'm genuinely curious how these perceptions/feelings might have changed over the past few years.
Maybe I'm cynical, but I would think this has more to do with the cost of ads going up so much. If you were already thinking of reducing spend on FB, why not get a little PR out of it?
Also, since the cost of FB ads has been going up over the last several years, that means there is no shortage of demand for ads on FB.
Yeah, pretty much all the big DTC brands (Allbirds, Away, Warby, OV, etc.) all have retail store fronts and "showrooms" now across the US. I always just assumed if they were spending $1mm+/month on FB ads, it wasn't a very difficult decision to move $20k/month to a store in a big city and see what kind of lead gen and brand awareness that yields.
Possibly, but advertising is one of the first things companies cut in a down economy. I want to believe these companies have good intent, but it could also be construed as opportunistic: "we were already cutting our advertising budget, so this just gives us a way to capitalize."
To show they believe in what they're doing, they should donate what they would have spent on Facebook ads to causes which promote voter registration and improving minority representation in tech.
Nice. I like that companies are putting their money where their mouth is, and not just doing cheap virtue signalling, like posting a black square on Instagram.
I think, and hope, however, that Facebook will come out victorious; (1) freedom of speech is important, (2) it's not up to Facebook to be the arbitrer of what's allowed or not (it's up to the law), (3) advertisers need Facebook more than Facebook needs them, and (4) sooner or later companies will learn that SJW-ing is at worst negative (each company could easily come under attack itself) and at best irrelevant (did Pepsi suffer any long-term consequences for the backlash against it a year or 2 ago? Did Gillete gain a lot for publishing its anti-toxic masculinity ad? I doubt it.)
Having the law as the sole arbiter of what is allowed or not would be terrible for free speech.
The problem is that we have an overwhelming amount of information being produced, so that people have a hard time evaluating all they are exposed to. Furthermore, we have a lot of people who are just too trusting, or too naive, or too gullible, or perhaps just even stupid. Finally, on top of that we have many information producers who are trying to cause harm ranging from people just doing it for fun to countries trying to undermine each other's stability.
A society must find some way to prevent or at least limit those who are intentionally trying to harm people from taking advantage of the overly trusting, naive, gullible, and stupid.
The law is a monopoly. Using it to try to address that problem will tend toward overly broad restrictions on speech, with little or no recourse for those whose speech should not have been included.
It's far better for it to be handled by Facebook, Twitter, and the rest. If Facebook won't let me talk about some particular topic I do have alternatives. They might not reach as far so I might have to go to some serious effort to contact like minded people and get them to agree to discuss my topic on some other platform--but I can.
> (4) sooner or later companies will learn that SJW-ing is at worst negative and at best irrelevant
I think this is pretty plainly untrue.
If you mean at best irrelevant for the company, that’s certainly not true — friends of mine (and myself!) absolutely make purchasing decisions based on the moral reputation of the company.
If you mean for the world, this also seems patently false to me. You can’t tell me that constantly seeing ads featuring gay couples as happy families doesn’t have a measurable impact on normalizing and aiding acceptance.
It seems the pandemic and unemployment is finally causing voodoo economics (trickle down economics) to reverse course and perhaps cause trickle up economics, where the multi-billion dollar corporations and rich alike will begin to feel the pinch of poverty on a massive scale trickle up.
Unfortunately while taxpayers got their $1,200 Checks they were robbed blind of over $4T to the FED which went directly to stabilize the publicly traded companies. If it weren’t for that, we would have already seen bankruptcies on a massive scale from publicly traded companies...instead the markets are back where the were pre-covid. But at some point they will have to admit there can’t be a recovery when there are no consumers left.
I'm frankly flabbergasted by what's going on with the markets. If anyone thought stocks were still somehow a projection of reality and an indicator of expectations on the future of a company's performance, well, that's clearly not the case anymore.
I am really scared that a real devastating collapse is still looming, but I frankly have no clue of when that could happen and what could actually trigger it.
I was listening to a great American poet recently, the lines
"The buying power of the proletariat's gone down/ Money's getting shallow and weak" really stuck with me.
What can that much money in the markets really buy when there's no economy being served by it any more? Eventually the winners will find they've been playing the wrong game.
This is a poor article. It mixes up several different issues and lumps them together as if they were one thing. Strongly ideological companies aren't going to behave like the bulk of their customers.
I read this as yet another shot from the NYT against tech in general. It's propaganda.
Since absolutely no one, in either numbers or social importance, knows about or cares about “the SSC debacle” and none of those who do are likely to be subscribers the NYT is unlikely to be concerned.
I wonder how much of it is Facebook being unwilling to be editorial and how much of it is then being unable to moderate a couple of billion users.
Either way, they might not get a choice. The EU is going to regulate them more and more. My own country is passing a law to force platforms to remove child pornography within 24 hours of it being reported as an example of where it starts. Won’t be long before we make enabling nazi groups planning hate crimes illegal either.
The ad system of Google and Facebook is obviously not created to benefit the businesses which book ads, but Fb and G. The business should be at best held at minimum but viable profit, highest cost for ads. At worst "burn through all your money with us". I by now came to eh conclusion that "paids (ads) growth" is scheme with only Fb and G as the profiteers.
I have mixed feelings about Facebook. I was one of the first people in my friend group to boycott Facebook back when it really wasn't cool to do so: back in 2008 or so. I did so for reasons of privacy. As someone who works with data for a living, I know full well the risks people are taking by using Facebook and I also see how little the general public understand about this. So I boycotted them.
But nobody talks about privacy any more.
The current backlash against Facebook seems to be due to them not wanting to censor the platform in quite the way that users want them to censor the platform. It seems everyone is happy with the censorship---because like anyone who has ever been happy with censorship they don't believe the readership is intelligent enough to read certain words---but they are unhappy that the censorship isn't being conducted in a way that benefits them.
Back in 2008 I thought it was simple: just don't use Facebook. Maybe it was that simple back then. But not now. This internet thing really seems to be turning into the great problem of our time and I fully expect it to cause several major crises before we figure it out.
For better or worse money talks. Advertiser pullouts have been an effective change mechanism in many other cases. TV personalities doing controversial things were typically done in when the advertisers pulled their money. Until then nothing happened.
Facebook does a lot of cool things but it’s only sustainable as a business if the advertising dollars keep flowing. Shut that off in any appreciable quantity and things will get ugly there real quick.
While it might affect Facebook’s bottom line for a short while, until users start moving away from FB nothing really will change. Advertisers will come back.
So because Mark Zuckerberg won't censor people with different opinions he is complacent in spreading fake news and hate?
Wow, that kind of rhetoric is dangerous imo. For once I actually think Facebook have made the right call. Censoring people is wrong and Facebook should refrain from doing it.
Let me decide what is true and false, I don't need Facebook or other people to decide that for me.
Good job Facebook, thanks for standing up for free speech.
The problem (among other things) is hyper-targeting of people who are specifically vulnerable to extreme points of view. One of my friends is an expert in tracking ads on Facebook and has found that white nationalists micro-target people who are susceptible to that ideology [1].
Similarly, they have refused to fact-check (not remove) climate science denialism, because they consider it opinion and thus exempt from their fact-checking process. [2] As you know, because of a lack of consensus on climate change, little action has been taken, causing an existential threat to everyone including yourself.
Facebook is accused of spreading “fake news” because they are in fact spreading debunked or misleading stories to a large number of their readers, who have the mistaken assumption that Facebook would prevent incorrect stories from circulating on their platform. They are accused of spreading “hate” because Facebook has long been a breeding-ground for white nationalism, the consequences of which are evident for all to see.
I applaud you for being smart and above influence, but you’re ignoring the very real effects of this policy, which have been extensively documented both in academia and in the press.
>Censoring people is wrong and Facebook should refrain from doing it.
> Let me decide what is true and false...
Yes.
But...
Facebook's algorithms do not give you both sides of the story. You may end up being presented with only ads, statements, opinions, etc from one side of the isle. Now, if you don't mind being inside an echo chamber, then you're good. But a lot of people can't tell that there inside an echo chamber and this ... is problematic.
I don't think the answer is censorship. I don't think there is a correct way to fix this without someone getting their who-ha tied in a knot. But leaving it as it is is just not healthy.
Facebook as a bastion of free speech? That's not something you hear often. I don't even even want to dig up the old examples of Zuckerberg bending over backwards for China, here's a recent example from Vietnam - https://in.reuters.com/article/vietnam-facebook/exclusive-fa...
Most reputable media outlets will not run ads, especially political ads, that contain false information. There’s enormous latitude in this area. It hasn’t stopped attack ads or misleading information from entering political discourse.
Facebook is refusing to apply any standard of editorial control over these ads. It’s their platform, their decision. I think it’s harmful to society and will happily talk shit about Facebook because of it.
They control ever byte if content on the platform and censor and surveil their users with alacrity. Choosing to allow deceptive campaign advertising does not make Facebook a leader in free speech.
Liberal society is ending, and you must swear allegiance to the People's Party, comrade. Otherwise, we will publicly denounce you, and will not permit you to engage in any business activity.
There will be an ideological examination. Study hard!
Like everything else in life, blanket rules don't hold up to the messy reality of the real world.
"Free speech" doesn't mean you should enable people to say literally anything.
At the extreme: direct credible physical threats on peoples' safety. These are explicitly illegal.
A bit less extreme: statements in indirect support of physical threats on groups of people, e.g. neonazis. The USA chooses not to govern these legally, but instead the responsibility becomes that of the people.
For example, many would argue (rightly) that it's Facebook's responsibility as a de facto news platform not to distribute/publish that kind of speech.
> Let me decide what is true and false, I don't need Facebook or other people to decide that for me.
Let's not pretend. Facebook and other social media already do that for you by deciding what content ends up getting surfaced and promoted. If what's true never ends up in your feed, how can you decide?
So you’re saying that we should promote fascism to our children?
...obviously you did not say that- it’s a ridiculous straw man. As is your first paragraph.
This whole area is rife with complexity, nuance and extremely difficult trade-offs. There are bad actors to contend with, extreme asymmetries of information, and asymmetries in the effort required to produce and to police misinformation. No analysis as simplistic as your comment is going to cut it.
Well that's good and well that you are independent, but the sad fact is that on average misinformation works, especially at scale. We don't really have a good grasp on the issue. It's in our culture to not regulate entertainment and media, but we're coming to terms with the fact that this can be turned against us.
Why would advertisers want their ads to run next to content they don't support? Free speech means they are free not to advertise if they don't like the content. Facebook is allowed to avoid censoring posts if that's what they want to do, but they don't have a right to advertisers' money.
Censorship only applies to the extent that public authorities are willing to actively curb free speech through law enforcement.
That's not what's happening here.
Regardless whether you're Facebook or an administrator of a small time forum, it's entirely up to you to decide how you are going to moderate whatever people want to host and share on your own very private (!) infrastructure. And the private choice to host a public forum for other people does come with it's own special set of consequences.
Both Facebook and a small time forum are very much comparable to private Saturday night parties. It's the host who decides to get in and how they respond to their guests' behaviour is their personal responsibility.
Now, if some of those guests end up espousing questionable opinions which sour the overall mood of the party, the host can respond to that in several ways. One way is to step in and moderate or even kick out those guests at the behest of the others who simply want to chill and enjoy themselves. Another way is to excuse their behaviour and simply leave them be because of the host's whatever many personal motivations, intentions and beliefs.
Facebook - or any small time forum admin - choosing for the latter option is entirely their prerogative. Freedom of speech means they are free to ignore whatever and state that they don't want to step in. It just so happens that this keeps on souring the mood at the party they host to the point where some guests will simply leave out of themselves - these companies - and that other guests leave only to return with cardboard signs voicing their disdain in front of the door of the venue.
Facebook can't stop that kind of criticism from happening either: that's free speech too. It just works both ways, as intended.
Nobody bats an eye if a small time forum administrator with 100 users ends up doing a shoddy job at moderation to the point where half their users end up leaving the forum disgruntled. Plenty of groups or private individuals break up over disagreements all the time.
Literally the only difference between a small time forum administrator and Facebook is that the latter hosts a very private party with 2 billion attendees.
It just so happens that at that scale, the way you moderate debates and behaviour of guests at your party decides the fate of entire nations and tugs at the bedrock of all kinds of important values and principles up to and including, ironically, free speech. It's not unreasonable to point out that the management of Facebook does carry a certain measure of personal responsibility in that regard.
This is amazing, because it means less competition and my business will get better marketing ROI. I fully support other businesses reducing advertising.
[+] [-] salimmadjd|5 years ago|reply
For me at the face of it's not incorrect, but it feels to me a certain deliberate wordsmithing is used to create a sense of growing momentum.
What we don't know if these advertisers represent 1%, more or less than x% of Facebook's ad revenue. I do understand FB will not provide that info, but some real journalism and follow up from said companies could have gathered us the amount this boycott means. After all this suppose to be NYT.
They do touch on this number, "smaller businesses that make up the bulk of its eight million advertisers have been considering their options"
However, again they are carefully crafting their words in a way that it's not inaccurate but showing a larger problem.
Instead of saying "one agency that manages 20 clients", or "we have heard from some advertisers" using "one agency", or "some advertisers" they are saying "advertisers" which to some readers will read as a lot of advertisers or a universal movement among advertisers.
[+] [-] skewart|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] methehack|5 years ago|reply
It is growing, the details are accurate in the article, and I can't think of a headline that has zero editorial information in it. If they don't run any story, then they risk the opposite criticism: why didn't you tell us?!
You should worry more about the media that philosophically rejects the notion of objective reality.
[+] [-] reaperducer|5 years ago|reply
Does it matter?
If two advertisers quit on Monday, and four more quit on Tuesday, and six more quit on Wednesday, that is growing momentum.
Is there a codified percentage of revenue where a newspaper is suddenly allowed (by Facebook?) to write about things? Can you provide a link?
HN-types like to jump on the mass media for not noticing trends soon enough. Then they jump on the mass media for noticing trends too soon. Make up your hive mind.
[+] [-] wayne_skylar|5 years ago|reply
When everything you saw was cronological, you could make that argument. I write a message on my wall and everyone who follows me can see it if they scroll down far enough. Most importantly, the only criteria used was the time it was submitted which I think everyone can agree is fair.
By prioritizing certain posts based on what the algorithm thinks will make you stay on the site longer, they are prioritizing, thus interfering with free speech. When I post something, my message will have a lower chance of reaching some of my followers. How can facebook justify tipping the scales for one type of message over another and call it free?
[+] [-] tech-historian|5 years ago|reply
Not trying to be snarky. I'm genuinely curious how these perceptions/feelings might have changed over the past few years.
[+] [-] avernon|5 years ago|reply
Also, since the cost of FB ads has been going up over the last several years, that means there is no shortage of demand for ads on FB.
[+] [-] admn2|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gfo|5 years ago|reply
To show they believe in what they're doing, they should donate what they would have spent on Facebook ads to causes which promote voter registration and improving minority representation in tech.
[+] [-] tomp|5 years ago|reply
I think, and hope, however, that Facebook will come out victorious; (1) freedom of speech is important, (2) it's not up to Facebook to be the arbitrer of what's allowed or not (it's up to the law), (3) advertisers need Facebook more than Facebook needs them, and (4) sooner or later companies will learn that SJW-ing is at worst negative (each company could easily come under attack itself) and at best irrelevant (did Pepsi suffer any long-term consequences for the backlash against it a year or 2 ago? Did Gillete gain a lot for publishing its anti-toxic masculinity ad? I doubt it.)
[+] [-] tzs|5 years ago|reply
The problem is that we have an overwhelming amount of information being produced, so that people have a hard time evaluating all they are exposed to. Furthermore, we have a lot of people who are just too trusting, or too naive, or too gullible, or perhaps just even stupid. Finally, on top of that we have many information producers who are trying to cause harm ranging from people just doing it for fun to countries trying to undermine each other's stability.
A society must find some way to prevent or at least limit those who are intentionally trying to harm people from taking advantage of the overly trusting, naive, gullible, and stupid.
The law is a monopoly. Using it to try to address that problem will tend toward overly broad restrictions on speech, with little or no recourse for those whose speech should not have been included.
It's far better for it to be handled by Facebook, Twitter, and the rest. If Facebook won't let me talk about some particular topic I do have alternatives. They might not reach as far so I might have to go to some serious effort to contact like minded people and get them to agree to discuss my topic on some other platform--but I can.
[+] [-] ketzo|5 years ago|reply
I think this is pretty plainly untrue.
If you mean at best irrelevant for the company, that’s certainly not true — friends of mine (and myself!) absolutely make purchasing decisions based on the moral reputation of the company.
If you mean for the world, this also seems patently false to me. You can’t tell me that constantly seeing ads featuring gay couples as happy families doesn’t have a measurable impact on normalizing and aiding acceptance.
[+] [-] throwaway_jobs|5 years ago|reply
Unfortunately while taxpayers got their $1,200 Checks they were robbed blind of over $4T to the FED which went directly to stabilize the publicly traded companies. If it weren’t for that, we would have already seen bankruptcies on a massive scale from publicly traded companies...instead the markets are back where the were pre-covid. But at some point they will have to admit there can’t be a recovery when there are no consumers left.
[+] [-] camillomiller|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] SuoDuanDao|5 years ago|reply
What can that much money in the markets really buy when there's no economy being served by it any more? Eventually the winners will find they've been playing the wrong game.
[+] [-] hprotagonist|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] creaghpatr|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] avsteele|5 years ago|reply
I read this as yet another shot from the NYT against tech in general. It's propaganda.
[+] [-] donw|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] intsunny|5 years ago|reply
In an era where the journalists are more under attack than ever, we might want to remember it is easier to tear things down than build them up.
[+] [-] evgen|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ashtonbaker|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] joubert|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] moksly|5 years ago|reply
Either way, they might not get a choice. The EU is going to regulate them more and more. My own country is passing a law to force platforms to remove child pornography within 24 hours of it being reported as an example of where it starts. Won’t be long before we make enabling nazi groups planning hate crimes illegal either.
[+] [-] 1235711|5 years ago|reply
As money leaves the pool, price per conversion will tend to go down automatically for everyone else.
If you think other advertisers will leave money on the table to make a point then you haven't worked in business very long.
[+] [-] franze|5 years ago|reply
The ad system of Google and Facebook is obviously not created to benefit the businesses which book ads, but Fb and G. The business should be at best held at minimum but viable profit, highest cost for ads. At worst "burn through all your money with us". I by now came to eh conclusion that "paids (ads) growth" is scheme with only Fb and G as the profiteers.
[+] [-] newsclues|5 years ago|reply
I frequently see government of Ontario and Canada advertising on Facebook and its poorly targeted and it makes me mad
[+] [-] globular-toast|5 years ago|reply
But nobody talks about privacy any more.
The current backlash against Facebook seems to be due to them not wanting to censor the platform in quite the way that users want them to censor the platform. It seems everyone is happy with the censorship---because like anyone who has ever been happy with censorship they don't believe the readership is intelligent enough to read certain words---but they are unhappy that the censorship isn't being conducted in a way that benefits them.
Back in 2008 I thought it was simple: just don't use Facebook. Maybe it was that simple back then. But not now. This internet thing really seems to be turning into the great problem of our time and I fully expect it to cause several major crises before we figure it out.
[+] [-] code4tee|5 years ago|reply
Facebook does a lot of cool things but it’s only sustainable as a business if the advertising dollars keep flowing. Shut that off in any appreciable quantity and things will get ugly there real quick.
[+] [-] rootusrootus|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ecmascript|5 years ago|reply
Wow, that kind of rhetoric is dangerous imo. For once I actually think Facebook have made the right call. Censoring people is wrong and Facebook should refrain from doing it.
Let me decide what is true and false, I don't need Facebook or other people to decide that for me.
Good job Facebook, thanks for standing up for free speech.
[+] [-] SoylentOrange|5 years ago|reply
Similarly, they have refused to fact-check (not remove) climate science denialism, because they consider it opinion and thus exempt from their fact-checking process. [2] As you know, because of a lack of consensus on climate change, little action has been taken, causing an existential threat to everyone including yourself.
Facebook is accused of spreading “fake news” because they are in fact spreading debunked or misleading stories to a large number of their readers, who have the mistaken assumption that Facebook would prevent incorrect stories from circulating on their platform. They are accused of spreading “hate” because Facebook has long been a breeding-ground for white nationalism, the consequences of which are evident for all to see.
I applaud you for being smart and above influence, but you’re ignoring the very real effects of this policy, which have been extensively documented both in academia and in the press.
[1]: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-46083026
[2]: https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-to-create-fact-checkin...
[+] [-] chooseaname|5 years ago|reply
Yes.
But...
Facebook's algorithms do not give you both sides of the story. You may end up being presented with only ads, statements, opinions, etc from one side of the isle. Now, if you don't mind being inside an echo chamber, then you're good. But a lot of people can't tell that there inside an echo chamber and this ... is problematic.
I don't think the answer is censorship. I don't think there is a correct way to fix this without someone getting their who-ha tied in a knot. But leaving it as it is is just not healthy.
[+] [-] abtom|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] demygale|5 years ago|reply
Facebook is refusing to apply any standard of editorial control over these ads. It’s their platform, their decision. I think it’s harmful to society and will happily talk shit about Facebook because of it.
They control ever byte if content on the platform and censor and surveil their users with alacrity. Choosing to allow deceptive campaign advertising does not make Facebook a leader in free speech.
[+] [-] fennecfoxen|5 years ago|reply
There will be an ideological examination. Study hard!
[+] [-] cowpig|5 years ago|reply
"Free speech" doesn't mean you should enable people to say literally anything.
At the extreme: direct credible physical threats on peoples' safety. These are explicitly illegal.
A bit less extreme: statements in indirect support of physical threats on groups of people, e.g. neonazis. The USA chooses not to govern these legally, but instead the responsibility becomes that of the people.
For example, many would argue (rightly) that it's Facebook's responsibility as a de facto news platform not to distribute/publish that kind of speech.
[+] [-] AlexandrB|5 years ago|reply
Let's not pretend. Facebook and other social media already do that for you by deciding what content ends up getting surfaced and promoted. If what's true never ends up in your feed, how can you decide?
[+] [-] incangold|5 years ago|reply
...obviously you did not say that- it’s a ridiculous straw man. As is your first paragraph.
This whole area is rife with complexity, nuance and extremely difficult trade-offs. There are bad actors to contend with, extreme asymmetries of information, and asymmetries in the effort required to produce and to police misinformation. No analysis as simplistic as your comment is going to cut it.
[+] [-] dmos62|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sp332|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] CaptArmchair|5 years ago|reply
That's not what's happening here.
Regardless whether you're Facebook or an administrator of a small time forum, it's entirely up to you to decide how you are going to moderate whatever people want to host and share on your own very private (!) infrastructure. And the private choice to host a public forum for other people does come with it's own special set of consequences.
Both Facebook and a small time forum are very much comparable to private Saturday night parties. It's the host who decides to get in and how they respond to their guests' behaviour is their personal responsibility.
Now, if some of those guests end up espousing questionable opinions which sour the overall mood of the party, the host can respond to that in several ways. One way is to step in and moderate or even kick out those guests at the behest of the others who simply want to chill and enjoy themselves. Another way is to excuse their behaviour and simply leave them be because of the host's whatever many personal motivations, intentions and beliefs.
Facebook - or any small time forum admin - choosing for the latter option is entirely their prerogative. Freedom of speech means they are free to ignore whatever and state that they don't want to step in. It just so happens that this keeps on souring the mood at the party they host to the point where some guests will simply leave out of themselves - these companies - and that other guests leave only to return with cardboard signs voicing their disdain in front of the door of the venue.
Facebook can't stop that kind of criticism from happening either: that's free speech too. It just works both ways, as intended.
Nobody bats an eye if a small time forum administrator with 100 users ends up doing a shoddy job at moderation to the point where half their users end up leaving the forum disgruntled. Plenty of groups or private individuals break up over disagreements all the time.
Literally the only difference between a small time forum administrator and Facebook is that the latter hosts a very private party with 2 billion attendees.
It just so happens that at that scale, the way you moderate debates and behaviour of guests at your party decides the fate of entire nations and tugs at the bedrock of all kinds of important values and principles up to and including, ironically, free speech. It's not unreasonable to point out that the management of Facebook does carry a certain measure of personal responsibility in that regard.
[+] [-] meroes|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] scarface74|5 years ago|reply
There was a story where a random FB user copied Trump’s posts verbatim. The user got censored. Trump didn’t.
[+] [-] unclebucknasty|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] new_realist|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] djohnston|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mintym|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 0xy|5 years ago|reply