[mgaunard]

No, I would call that being confused about the distinction between law making and law enforcement, which are traditionally very distinct things.

It makes sense for there to be leeway due to the scale, automations and high rate of false positives with limited capabilities to correct them.

[exceptione]

This sounds like almost the best business environment for criminals.

"I am sorry judge, yes, it could be that we are involved in crime, but we have been too busy counting billions of dollars each year. As you might understand, businesses are not part of society, they should only be judged on their shareholder value. We reap the profits, society pays for the collateral damage, that's only fair."

Yes, you mentioned leeway. That would only make sense in the context of an entity understanding it's role. It does like in the way above.

[munk-a]

For what reason should we allow such leeway? No hosted platform in the 80s was responsible for a similar amount. Maybe if Meta can't properly police such a large platform it shouldn't be allowed to operate one. Facebook doesn't have to exist and we don't have to accept weak cries of "it's our best effort!"

[parineum]

There should be leeway because sexual content is subjective and it gives a few chances to allow users to learn where the line is.

[lubujackson]

79% of ALL child sex trafficking. 4 out of 5 child sex slaves exist thanks to Facebook's policies.

But sure, go on and talk about "leeway" and "limited capabilities" for a company worth nearly a trillion dollars. Do you honestly believe this is acceptable? What are your vested interests here?

[SpicyLemonZest]

Since you're emphasizing the ALL, I am obligated to nitpick that it is not all. The source article says that, but it's wrong; the underlying link clarifies that it's 79% of sex trafficking which occurs on social media. As has been discussed downthread, a social media platform with large marketshare is always going to have a large percentage of every bad thing that can happen on social media.

[kstrauser]

Do you have a citation for that? You may be right for all I know. I don't know much about it. But that seems unlikely to me, and if it's true, I'd like a reference I can show others when I'm trying to get them to finally close their account.

[amluto]

> 4 out of 5 child sex slaves exist thanks to Facebook's policies.

Even if your 79% number is correct, this does not follow. It like if someone said, 30 years ago, that 95% of total advertisements were in the classified section that 9 out of 10 retail sales happened thanks to the classifieds.

(I’m not trying to excuse Facebook’s behavior. But maybe criticisms of Facebook would be more effective if they stayed on track.)

[LanceH]

80% of people die within 20 miles of their home. So...if they just don't go home, 80% of people would be immortal.

[ceejayoz]

> I would call that being confused about the distinction between law making and law enforcement…

I think you're confused. Facebook does neither. Facebook makes and enforces their own policies, not laws.

> It makes sense for there to be leeway due to the scale, automations and high rate of false positives with limited capabilities to correct them.

They should staff a human review/appeals process again, then. They used COVID as the excuse to discard that cost center.

[sollewitt]

They are both the legislature and the judiciary.