|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Norway28561 Posts
I use facebook as a means of communicating, never as a way of advertising. I've never seen any ads for neo nazi websites either. User created content being the core of facebook seems totally on point to me, and punishing them for user created content does seem like something that could be difficult to implement. I mean you're saying it has to do with size - how large does a webpage or user created content based service have to be before they are eligible? How illegal does something have to be? How quickly does illegal content have to be taken down? How much effort must be spent moderating?
|
Personally, I don't think punishing Facebook is the right angle; the idea is that digital spaces don't need to be as Wild West as they currently are. That'll likely include putting burdens on Facebook it wouldn't put on itself naturally, but punishment isn't really the point imo.
|
On September 22 2017 02:57 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2017 02:48 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 22 2017 02:27 farvacola wrote:On September 22 2017 02:19 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 22 2017 02:08 farvacola wrote:
The New York Times website can be easily distinguished from Facebook if you're asking those questions though. The former exists for the purpose of disseminating news stories with comment functions attached whereas the latter exists primarily as a platform for comment sharing in the first place. In that sense, it's not unreasonable to assign publisher liability differently between the two. Yeah, that's why it's kind of the whole point. The law explicitly states they are not publishers. And yes, there's the argument that they should be considered publishers. As long as you're also acknowledging that you basically don't want the internet, and internet services, to exist anymore. No, that's not consistent with what you're agreeing to; the idea that Facebook should be assigned a different kind of publisher liability easily gels with enforcing the terms of said liability through methods unlike typical defamation actions or other routine causes of action against publishers. For example, regulatorily mandated oversight on the part of Facebook with regards to filtering out or even simply identifying specific kinds of inputs would likely keep out a lot of the garbage that floats around willy nilly. The FCC could very easily be assigned special rule-making authority as an additional layer of oversight. This condescendingly hyperbolic "I guess you don't want the internet if you want Facebook to be more accountable for what it disseminates" nonsense is just that. This is entirely different than holding Facebook responsible for defamatory comments, but let me parse this out then: 1) The FCC would set a specific list of restricted content. 2) Internet services must block that restricted content. This was tried with pornographic material at the same time Section 230 was written into law. That part was ruled unconstitutional after it went to court. This also doesn't address defamatory or harassing content, which was the major point of contention. The FCC cannot just say "defamation or harassment can't be on your service". If they did, yes, that would break the internet. Team Liquid would be sued or fined if I insulted you, for example (and I have a hard time buying that TL is too small or not profitable enough that they'd be exempt). Saying it would break the internet may sound like hyperbole, but think how many internet related services you use that rely on user interaction or user generated content, and consider how many would exist if the law said they are directly responsible for everything their users say. Answer will probably be most of them, and very few of them, respectively. Look, just because you lack the imagination to come up with a constitutional and appropriate method of increasing Facebook's legal responsibility when it comes to what their site is used for does not mean that shoehorning every proposal into the same built-to-fail scheme is the only way to make sense of this. Unique and unprecedented media forms must be approached from a similar perspective regulation-wise; straight up "these forms of speech are restricted" rules are only the tip of the iceberg and not a good reason to start positing that reformers want to do away with the internet. Like I already said, even a simple registry system in which Facebook IDs and pools potentially problematic comments could help cut down on hostile/dangerous/malicious posts, particularly if it were partnered with an FCC program aimed at assisting victims seeking relief from harassment.
My problem is that everyone keeps redirecting what Facebook is supposed to be accountable for.
If we've gone down to "Facebook needs to deal with problem content and users after its reported to them", then okay. Plenty of other countries have stricter requirements for things like privacy, response to problem content, etc. And yes, the legal framework for chasing down online harassment is terrible (especially in the US because of civil lawsuit structure).
But that's a drastically different approach and attitude than Facebook needing to solve the problem because they created the avenue.
|
On September 22 2017 03:04 farvacola wrote:
Personally, I don't think punishing Facebook is the right angle; the idea is that digital spaces don't need to be as Wild West as they currently are. That'll likely include putting burdens on Facebook it wouldn't put on itself naturally, but punishment isn't really the point imo.
I don’t think so either. They are just an easy examples, since they dominate the discussion. But an update in how the internet is regulated to make it less of the wild west would solve a lot of these problems.
|
On September 22 2017 03:07 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2017 02:57 farvacola wrote:On September 22 2017 02:48 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 22 2017 02:27 farvacola wrote:On September 22 2017 02:19 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 22 2017 02:08 farvacola wrote:
The New York Times website can be easily distinguished from Facebook if you're asking those questions though. The former exists for the purpose of disseminating news stories with comment functions attached whereas the latter exists primarily as a platform for comment sharing in the first place. In that sense, it's not unreasonable to assign publisher liability differently between the two. Yeah, that's why it's kind of the whole point. The law explicitly states they are not publishers. And yes, there's the argument that they should be considered publishers. As long as you're also acknowledging that you basically don't want the internet, and internet services, to exist anymore. No, that's not consistent with what you're agreeing to; the idea that Facebook should be assigned a different kind of publisher liability easily gels with enforcing the terms of said liability through methods unlike typical defamation actions or other routine causes of action against publishers. For example, regulatorily mandated oversight on the part of Facebook with regards to filtering out or even simply identifying specific kinds of inputs would likely keep out a lot of the garbage that floats around willy nilly. The FCC could very easily be assigned special rule-making authority as an additional layer of oversight. This condescendingly hyperbolic "I guess you don't want the internet if you want Facebook to be more accountable for what it disseminates" nonsense is just that. This is entirely different than holding Facebook responsible for defamatory comments, but let me parse this out then: 1) The FCC would set a specific list of restricted content. 2) Internet services must block that restricted content. This was tried with pornographic material at the same time Section 230 was written into law. That part was ruled unconstitutional after it went to court. This also doesn't address defamatory or harassing content, which was the major point of contention. The FCC cannot just say "defamation or harassment can't be on your service". If they did, yes, that would break the internet. Team Liquid would be sued or fined if I insulted you, for example (and I have a hard time buying that TL is too small or not profitable enough that they'd be exempt). Saying it would break the internet may sound like hyperbole, but think how many internet related services you use that rely on user interaction or user generated content, and consider how many would exist if the law said they are directly responsible for everything their users say. Answer will probably be most of them, and very few of them, respectively. Look, just because you lack the imagination to come up with a constitutional and appropriate method of increasing Facebook's legal responsibility when it comes to what their site is used for does not mean that shoehorning every proposal into the same built-to-fail scheme is the only way to make sense of this. Unique and unprecedented media forms must be approached from a similar perspective regulation-wise; straight up "these forms of speech are restricted" rules are only the tip of the iceberg and not a good reason to start positing that reformers want to do away with the internet. Like I already said, even a simple registry system in which Facebook IDs and pools potentially problematic comments could help cut down on hostile/dangerous/malicious posts, particularly if it were partnered with an FCC program aimed at assisting victims seeking relief from harassment. My problem is that everyone keeps redirecting what Facebook is supposed to be accountable for. If we've gone down to "Facebook needs to deal with problem content and users after its reported to them", then okay. Plenty of other countries have stricter requirements for things like privacy, response to problem content, etc. And yes, the legal framework for chasing down online harassment is terrible (especially in the US because of civil lawsuit structure). But that's a drastically different approach and attitude than Facebook needing to solve the problem because they created the avenue.
Fair enough, I've said my piece as to which approach I think is right 
|
|
|
On September 22 2017 02:52 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2017 02:43 dankobanana wrote:On September 22 2017 00:11 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Governments are struggling to find a way to stop people from lying or spreading false information, which isn't a remotely easy task. its called education and critical thinking On September 22 2017 01:06 zlefin wrote:
while I may disagree with some of your particular proposals ot updtae things; I strongly agree with the principle of updating laws to account for changes that have occurred since then. There's a general problem in governmetn with failing to keep laws up to date. 2nd amendment cough cough On September 22 2017 01:18 Plansix wrote:
That applies almost every industry that isn't facebook and others. Movie theaters can be held responsible for the movies they show, if those movies break some law. They can’t blame the company that made the movie and wash their hands, while also keeping the money from tickets. let me give you an apt comparison. Facebook is at its core user generated content. Like a phone company. They, like the phone company, provide a means of communication, and like the phone company don't own or are held responsible for content because it would be ludicrous. And unlike the phone company, Facebook actually does something about "bad content". Your comparison is super bad on every level. Like stunningly bad. I’m sort of impressed. Facebook isn’t a means of communication, its an advertising platform. When AT&T starts reading me ads for neo nazi websites before they connect my calls, they might be similar.
People use Facebook to communicate and instead of paying a subscription fee, they get targeted ads. I don't think that makes Facebook an advertising platform. If I could get a phone line to my house that I could use by listening to an ad before I make a call instead of paying a monthly subscription I'd be a lot more interested in it.
|
On September 22 2017 03:27 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2017 02:52 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2017 02:43 dankobanana wrote:On September 22 2017 00:11 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Governments are struggling to find a way to stop people from lying or spreading false information, which isn't a remotely easy task. its called education and critical thinking On September 22 2017 01:06 zlefin wrote:
while I may disagree with some of your particular proposals ot updtae things; I strongly agree with the principle of updating laws to account for changes that have occurred since then. There's a general problem in governmetn with failing to keep laws up to date. 2nd amendment cough cough On September 22 2017 01:18 Plansix wrote:
That applies almost every industry that isn't facebook and others. Movie theaters can be held responsible for the movies they show, if those movies break some law. They can’t blame the company that made the movie and wash their hands, while also keeping the money from tickets. let me give you an apt comparison. Facebook is at its core user generated content. Like a phone company. They, like the phone company, provide a means of communication, and like the phone company don't own or are held responsible for content because it would be ludicrous. And unlike the phone company, Facebook actually does something about "bad content". Your comparison is super bad on every level. Like stunningly bad. I’m sort of impressed. Facebook isn’t a means of communication, its an advertising platform. When AT&T starts reading me ads for neo nazi websites before they connect my calls, they might be similar. People use Facebook to communicate and instead of paying a subscription fee, they get targeted ads. I don't think that makes Facebook an advertising platform. If I could get a phone line to my house that I could use by listening to an ad before I make a call instead of paying a monthly subscription I'd be a lot more interested in it.
Where does almost all of facebook’s revenue come from?
|
Part of why it feels problematic to me is the fact that Facebook promotes using user-created content as advertising within the scope of Facebook itself. This is part of the point of group pages/pages for specific books/music groups/artists-you can even pay Facebook to promote them in-site, as they constantly remind you if you ever create one.
If Facebook is collecting a group's money to advertise that group to its members that the group might appeal to, surely they should bear some responsibility for the contents of the group similar to how the radio would bear some responsibility for broadcasting an ad?
|
United States42008 Posts
On September 22 2017 03:47 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2017 03:27 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On September 22 2017 02:52 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2017 02:43 dankobanana wrote:On September 22 2017 00:11 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Governments are struggling to find a way to stop people from lying or spreading false information, which isn't a remotely easy task. its called education and critical thinking On September 22 2017 01:06 zlefin wrote:
while I may disagree with some of your particular proposals ot updtae things; I strongly agree with the principle of updating laws to account for changes that have occurred since then. There's a general problem in governmetn with failing to keep laws up to date. 2nd amendment cough cough On September 22 2017 01:18 Plansix wrote:
That applies almost every industry that isn't facebook and others. Movie theaters can be held responsible for the movies they show, if those movies break some law. They can’t blame the company that made the movie and wash their hands, while also keeping the money from tickets. let me give you an apt comparison. Facebook is at its core user generated content. Like a phone company. They, like the phone company, provide a means of communication, and like the phone company don't own or are held responsible for content because it would be ludicrous. And unlike the phone company, Facebook actually does something about "bad content". Your comparison is super bad on every level. Like stunningly bad. I’m sort of impressed. Facebook isn’t a means of communication, its an advertising platform. When AT&T starts reading me ads for neo nazi websites before they connect my calls, they might be similar. People use Facebook to communicate and instead of paying a subscription fee, they get targeted ads. I don't think that makes Facebook an advertising platform. If I could get a phone line to my house that I could use by listening to an ad before I make a call instead of paying a monthly subscription I'd be a lot more interested in it. Where does almost all of facebook’s revenue come from?
That argument doesn't necessarily follow. A communication service can make advertising revenue and still be a communication service. Why the users use it is to communicate. Why the sponsors use it is to advertise. Why the big data harvesting firms use it is to collect data.
|
On September 22 2017 03:53 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2017 03:47 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2017 03:27 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On September 22 2017 02:52 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2017 02:43 dankobanana wrote:On September 22 2017 00:11 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Governments are struggling to find a way to stop people from lying or spreading false information, which isn't a remotely easy task. its called education and critical thinking On September 22 2017 01:06 zlefin wrote:
while I may disagree with some of your particular proposals ot updtae things; I strongly agree with the principle of updating laws to account for changes that have occurred since then. There's a general problem in governmetn with failing to keep laws up to date. 2nd amendment cough cough On September 22 2017 01:18 Plansix wrote:
That applies almost every industry that isn't facebook and others. Movie theaters can be held responsible for the movies they show, if those movies break some law. They can’t blame the company that made the movie and wash their hands, while also keeping the money from tickets. let me give you an apt comparison. Facebook is at its core user generated content. Like a phone company. They, like the phone company, provide a means of communication, and like the phone company don't own or are held responsible for content because it would be ludicrous. And unlike the phone company, Facebook actually does something about "bad content". Your comparison is super bad on every level. Like stunningly bad. I’m sort of impressed. Facebook isn’t a means of communication, its an advertising platform. When AT&T starts reading me ads for neo nazi websites before they connect my calls, they might be similar. People use Facebook to communicate and instead of paying a subscription fee, they get targeted ads. I don't think that makes Facebook an advertising platform. If I could get a phone line to my house that I could use by listening to an ad before I make a call instead of paying a monthly subscription I'd be a lot more interested in it. Where does almost all of facebook’s revenue come from? That argument doesn't necessarily follow. A communication service can make advertising revenue and still be a communication service. Why the users use it is to communicate. Why the sponsors use it is to advertise. Why the big data harvesting firms use it is to collect data.
It is a social network that sells its user data to advertising firms and offers ads on its network. It also has communication hooks, but that is only to assure users continue to use the service. The user’s are facebook’s product, which they sell to advertisers and other groups. The people using the site to communicate have never been its customers.
|
On September 22 2017 03:59 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2017 03:53 KwarK wrote:On September 22 2017 03:47 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2017 03:27 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On September 22 2017 02:52 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2017 02:43 dankobanana wrote:On September 22 2017 00:11 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Governments are struggling to find a way to stop people from lying or spreading false information, which isn't a remotely easy task. its called education and critical thinking On September 22 2017 01:06 zlefin wrote:
while I may disagree with some of your particular proposals ot updtae things; I strongly agree with the principle of updating laws to account for changes that have occurred since then. There's a general problem in governmetn with failing to keep laws up to date. 2nd amendment cough cough On September 22 2017 01:18 Plansix wrote:
That applies almost every industry that isn't facebook and others. Movie theaters can be held responsible for the movies they show, if those movies break some law. They can’t blame the company that made the movie and wash their hands, while also keeping the money from tickets. let me give you an apt comparison. Facebook is at its core user generated content. Like a phone company. They, like the phone company, provide a means of communication, and like the phone company don't own or are held responsible for content because it would be ludicrous. And unlike the phone company, Facebook actually does something about "bad content". Your comparison is super bad on every level. Like stunningly bad. I’m sort of impressed. Facebook isn’t a means of communication, its an advertising platform. When AT&T starts reading me ads for neo nazi websites before they connect my calls, they might be similar. People use Facebook to communicate and instead of paying a subscription fee, they get targeted ads. I don't think that makes Facebook an advertising platform. If I could get a phone line to my house that I could use by listening to an ad before I make a call instead of paying a monthly subscription I'd be a lot more interested in it. Where does almost all of facebook’s revenue come from? That argument doesn't necessarily follow. A communication service can make advertising revenue and still be a communication service. Why the users use it is to communicate. Why the sponsors use it is to advertise. Why the big data harvesting firms use it is to collect data. It is a social network that sells its user data to advertising firms and offers ads on its network. It also has communication hooks, but that is only to assure users continue to use the service. The user’s are facebook’s product, which they sell to advertisers and other groups. The people using the site to communicate have never been its customers.
The exact same things are true of Newspapers, TV and Radio stations, etc.
Unless you also consider those advertising platforms, in which case okay.
|
On September 22 2017 03:53 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2017 03:47 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2017 03:27 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On September 22 2017 02:52 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2017 02:43 dankobanana wrote:On September 22 2017 00:11 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Governments are struggling to find a way to stop people from lying or spreading false information, which isn't a remotely easy task. its called education and critical thinking On September 22 2017 01:06 zlefin wrote:
while I may disagree with some of your particular proposals ot updtae things; I strongly agree with the principle of updating laws to account for changes that have occurred since then. There's a general problem in governmetn with failing to keep laws up to date. 2nd amendment cough cough On September 22 2017 01:18 Plansix wrote:
That applies almost every industry that isn't facebook and others. Movie theaters can be held responsible for the movies they show, if those movies break some law. They can’t blame the company that made the movie and wash their hands, while also keeping the money from tickets. let me give you an apt comparison. Facebook is at its core user generated content. Like a phone company. They, like the phone company, provide a means of communication, and like the phone company don't own or are held responsible for content because it would be ludicrous. And unlike the phone company, Facebook actually does something about "bad content". Your comparison is super bad on every level. Like stunningly bad. I’m sort of impressed. Facebook isn’t a means of communication, its an advertising platform. When AT&T starts reading me ads for neo nazi websites before they connect my calls, they might be similar. People use Facebook to communicate and instead of paying a subscription fee, they get targeted ads. I don't think that makes Facebook an advertising platform. If I could get a phone line to my house that I could use by listening to an ad before I make a call instead of paying a monthly subscription I'd be a lot more interested in it. Where does almost all of facebook’s revenue come from? That argument doesn't necessarily follow. A communication service can make advertising revenue and still be a communication service. Why the users use it is to communicate. Why the sponsors use it is to advertise. Why the big data harvesting firms use it is to collect data.
Wouldn't the size and scope of everything that Facebook does prohibit it from existing if not for the advertiser use? does it then not follow that facebook's "business" is to sell advertisement, and the user communication functionality is just a means by which facebook can collect data to better target that advertisement practice?
If Facebook switched to a paid membership then you could say it is a communications service primarily, which is really what facebook started out as, but in their search to conitnue the development of the website and the functionality it offered they switched their business paradigm to an ad service.
Thats my take on it FWIW.
|
|
|
Norway28561 Posts
On September 22 2017 03:59 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2017 03:53 KwarK wrote:On September 22 2017 03:47 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2017 03:27 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On September 22 2017 02:52 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2017 02:43 dankobanana wrote:On September 22 2017 00:11 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Governments are struggling to find a way to stop people from lying or spreading false information, which isn't a remotely easy task. its called education and critical thinking On September 22 2017 01:06 zlefin wrote:
while I may disagree with some of your particular proposals ot updtae things; I strongly agree with the principle of updating laws to account for changes that have occurred since then. There's a general problem in governmetn with failing to keep laws up to date. 2nd amendment cough cough On September 22 2017 01:18 Plansix wrote:
That applies almost every industry that isn't facebook and others. Movie theaters can be held responsible for the movies they show, if those movies break some law. They can’t blame the company that made the movie and wash their hands, while also keeping the money from tickets. let me give you an apt comparison. Facebook is at its core user generated content. Like a phone company. They, like the phone company, provide a means of communication, and like the phone company don't own or are held responsible for content because it would be ludicrous. And unlike the phone company, Facebook actually does something about "bad content". Your comparison is super bad on every level. Like stunningly bad. I’m sort of impressed. Facebook isn’t a means of communication, its an advertising platform. When AT&T starts reading me ads for neo nazi websites before they connect my calls, they might be similar. People use Facebook to communicate and instead of paying a subscription fee, they get targeted ads. I don't think that makes Facebook an advertising platform. If I could get a phone line to my house that I could use by listening to an ad before I make a call instead of paying a monthly subscription I'd be a lot more interested in it. Where does almost all of facebook’s revenue come from? That argument doesn't necessarily follow. A communication service can make advertising revenue and still be a communication service. Why the users use it is to communicate. Why the sponsors use it is to advertise. Why the big data harvesting firms use it is to collect data. It is a social network that sells its user data to advertising firms and offers ads on its network. It also has communication hooks, but that is only to assure users continue to use the service. The user’s are facebook’s product, which they sell to advertisers and other groups. The people using the site to communicate have never been its customers.
I really think you have this chicken and egg thing backwards here. Nobody would use facebook if it was just ads, and when it was created, it wasn't created as an advertisement platform that tried to attract users. It attracted users and the ads followed.
|
On September 22 2017 04:01 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2017 03:59 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2017 03:53 KwarK wrote:On September 22 2017 03:47 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2017 03:27 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On September 22 2017 02:52 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2017 02:43 dankobanana wrote:On September 22 2017 00:11 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Governments are struggling to find a way to stop people from lying or spreading false information, which isn't a remotely easy task. its called education and critical thinking On September 22 2017 01:06 zlefin wrote:
while I may disagree with some of your particular proposals ot updtae things; I strongly agree with the principle of updating laws to account for changes that have occurred since then. There's a general problem in governmetn with failing to keep laws up to date. 2nd amendment cough cough On September 22 2017 01:18 Plansix wrote:
That applies almost every industry that isn't facebook and others. Movie theaters can be held responsible for the movies they show, if those movies break some law. They can’t blame the company that made the movie and wash their hands, while also keeping the money from tickets. let me give you an apt comparison. Facebook is at its core user generated content. Like a phone company. They, like the phone company, provide a means of communication, and like the phone company don't own or are held responsible for content because it would be ludicrous. And unlike the phone company, Facebook actually does something about "bad content". Your comparison is super bad on every level. Like stunningly bad. I’m sort of impressed. Facebook isn’t a means of communication, its an advertising platform. When AT&T starts reading me ads for neo nazi websites before they connect my calls, they might be similar. People use Facebook to communicate and instead of paying a subscription fee, they get targeted ads. I don't think that makes Facebook an advertising platform. If I could get a phone line to my house that I could use by listening to an ad before I make a call instead of paying a monthly subscription I'd be a lot more interested in it. Where does almost all of facebook’s revenue come from? That argument doesn't necessarily follow. A communication service can make advertising revenue and still be a communication service. Why the users use it is to communicate. Why the sponsors use it is to advertise. Why the big data harvesting firms use it is to collect data. It is a social network that sells its user data to advertising firms and offers ads on its network. It also has communication hooks, but that is only to assure users continue to use the service. The user’s are facebook’s product, which they sell to advertisers and other groups. The people using the site to communicate have never been its customers. The exact same things are true of Newspapers, TV and Radio stations, etc. Unless you also consider those advertising platforms, in which case okay.
I do. And I would like facebook to have to play my mildly similar rules. Just like reddit, twitter and youtube. They don’t need to be exactly the same, but maybe not the complete wild west where anything goes as long as no one dies.
On September 22 2017 04:04 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2017 03:59 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2017 03:53 KwarK wrote:On September 22 2017 03:47 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2017 03:27 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On September 22 2017 02:52 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2017 02:43 dankobanana wrote:On September 22 2017 00:11 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Governments are struggling to find a way to stop people from lying or spreading false information, which isn't a remotely easy task. its called education and critical thinking On September 22 2017 01:06 zlefin wrote:
while I may disagree with some of your particular proposals ot updtae things; I strongly agree with the principle of updating laws to account for changes that have occurred since then. There's a general problem in governmetn with failing to keep laws up to date. 2nd amendment cough cough On September 22 2017 01:18 Plansix wrote:
That applies almost every industry that isn't facebook and others. Movie theaters can be held responsible for the movies they show, if those movies break some law. They can’t blame the company that made the movie and wash their hands, while also keeping the money from tickets. let me give you an apt comparison. Facebook is at its core user generated content. Like a phone company. They, like the phone company, provide a means of communication, and like the phone company don't own or are held responsible for content because it would be ludicrous. And unlike the phone company, Facebook actually does something about "bad content". Your comparison is super bad on every level. Like stunningly bad. I’m sort of impressed. Facebook isn’t a means of communication, its an advertising platform. When AT&T starts reading me ads for neo nazi websites before they connect my calls, they might be similar. People use Facebook to communicate and instead of paying a subscription fee, they get targeted ads. I don't think that makes Facebook an advertising platform. If I could get a phone line to my house that I could use by listening to an ad before I make a call instead of paying a monthly subscription I'd be a lot more interested in it. Where does almost all of facebook’s revenue come from? That argument doesn't necessarily follow. A communication service can make advertising revenue and still be a communication service. Why the users use it is to communicate. Why the sponsors use it is to advertise. Why the big data harvesting firms use it is to collect data. It is a social network that sells its user data to advertising firms and offers ads on its network. It also has communication hooks, but that is only to assure users continue to use the service. The user’s are facebook’s product, which they sell to advertisers and other groups. The people using the site to communicate have never been its customers. I really think you have this chicken and egg thing backwards here. Nobody would use facebook if it was just ads, and when it was created, it wasn't created as an advertisement platform that tried to attract users. It attracted users and the ads followed.
I know the history of Facebook. I’m concerned what they were, I’m concerned with what they have become.
|
On September 22 2017 04:01 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2017 03:59 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2017 03:53 KwarK wrote:On September 22 2017 03:47 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2017 03:27 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On September 22 2017 02:52 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2017 02:43 dankobanana wrote:On September 22 2017 00:11 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Governments are struggling to find a way to stop people from lying or spreading false information, which isn't a remotely easy task. its called education and critical thinking On September 22 2017 01:06 zlefin wrote:
while I may disagree with some of your particular proposals ot updtae things; I strongly agree with the principle of updating laws to account for changes that have occurred since then. There's a general problem in governmetn with failing to keep laws up to date. 2nd amendment cough cough On September 22 2017 01:18 Plansix wrote:
That applies almost every industry that isn't facebook and others. Movie theaters can be held responsible for the movies they show, if those movies break some law. They can’t blame the company that made the movie and wash their hands, while also keeping the money from tickets. let me give you an apt comparison. Facebook is at its core user generated content. Like a phone company. They, like the phone company, provide a means of communication, and like the phone company don't own or are held responsible for content because it would be ludicrous. And unlike the phone company, Facebook actually does something about "bad content". Your comparison is super bad on every level. Like stunningly bad. I’m sort of impressed. Facebook isn’t a means of communication, its an advertising platform. When AT&T starts reading me ads for neo nazi websites before they connect my calls, they might be similar. People use Facebook to communicate and instead of paying a subscription fee, they get targeted ads. I don't think that makes Facebook an advertising platform. If I could get a phone line to my house that I could use by listening to an ad before I make a call instead of paying a monthly subscription I'd be a lot more interested in it. Where does almost all of facebook’s revenue come from? That argument doesn't necessarily follow. A communication service can make advertising revenue and still be a communication service. Why the users use it is to communicate. Why the sponsors use it is to advertise. Why the big data harvesting firms use it is to collect data. It is a social network that sells its user data to advertising firms and offers ads on its network. It also has communication hooks, but that is only to assure users continue to use the service. The user’s are facebook’s product, which they sell to advertisers and other groups. The people using the site to communicate have never been its customers. The exact same things are true of Newspapers, TV and Radio stations, etc. Unless you also consider those advertising platforms, in which case okay.
Look at CNN or fox news these days and tell me they arent just advertising platforms. 24 hr news cycles created to gain the maximum amount of viewers for the maximum amount of time, not to disseminate accurate and important news, but to sell air time and put some cash in their bottom line. I would say some newspapers have managed to avoid completely shifting because they have cult followings and their subscription fees allow them to stay afloat, but most newspapers have become just that... ad space.
|
On September 22 2017 04:04 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2017 03:59 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2017 03:53 KwarK wrote:On September 22 2017 03:47 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2017 03:27 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On September 22 2017 02:52 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2017 02:43 dankobanana wrote:On September 22 2017 00:11 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Governments are struggling to find a way to stop people from lying or spreading false information, which isn't a remotely easy task. its called education and critical thinking On September 22 2017 01:06 zlefin wrote:
while I may disagree with some of your particular proposals ot updtae things; I strongly agree with the principle of updating laws to account for changes that have occurred since then. There's a general problem in governmetn with failing to keep laws up to date. 2nd amendment cough cough On September 22 2017 01:18 Plansix wrote:
That applies almost every industry that isn't facebook and others. Movie theaters can be held responsible for the movies they show, if those movies break some law. They can’t blame the company that made the movie and wash their hands, while also keeping the money from tickets. let me give you an apt comparison. Facebook is at its core user generated content. Like a phone company. They, like the phone company, provide a means of communication, and like the phone company don't own or are held responsible for content because it would be ludicrous. And unlike the phone company, Facebook actually does something about "bad content". Your comparison is super bad on every level. Like stunningly bad. I’m sort of impressed. Facebook isn’t a means of communication, its an advertising platform. When AT&T starts reading me ads for neo nazi websites before they connect my calls, they might be similar. People use Facebook to communicate and instead of paying a subscription fee, they get targeted ads. I don't think that makes Facebook an advertising platform. If I could get a phone line to my house that I could use by listening to an ad before I make a call instead of paying a monthly subscription I'd be a lot more interested in it. Where does almost all of facebook’s revenue come from? That argument doesn't necessarily follow. A communication service can make advertising revenue and still be a communication service. Why the users use it is to communicate. Why the sponsors use it is to advertise. Why the big data harvesting firms use it is to collect data. It is a social network that sells its user data to advertising firms and offers ads on its network. It also has communication hooks, but that is only to assure users continue to use the service. The user’s are facebook’s product, which they sell to advertisers and other groups. The people using the site to communicate have never been its customers. I really think you have this chicken and egg thing backwards here. Nobody would use facebook if it was just ads, and when it was created, it wasn't created as an advertisement platform that tried to attract users. It attracted users and the ads followed.
you missed the key step that so many users were attracted that it wasn't sustainable to manage the company with the minimal advertising it was going when it started. They had two options, double down on ads or charge a fee. they chose to triple down on the ads and incorporate everything about the website into data collection and ad targetting.
|
United States42008 Posts
On September 22 2017 03:59 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2017 03:53 KwarK wrote:On September 22 2017 03:47 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2017 03:27 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On September 22 2017 02:52 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2017 02:43 dankobanana wrote:On September 22 2017 00:11 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Governments are struggling to find a way to stop people from lying or spreading false information, which isn't a remotely easy task. its called education and critical thinking On September 22 2017 01:06 zlefin wrote:
while I may disagree with some of your particular proposals ot updtae things; I strongly agree with the principle of updating laws to account for changes that have occurred since then. There's a general problem in governmetn with failing to keep laws up to date. 2nd amendment cough cough On September 22 2017 01:18 Plansix wrote:
That applies almost every industry that isn't facebook and others. Movie theaters can be held responsible for the movies they show, if those movies break some law. They can’t blame the company that made the movie and wash their hands, while also keeping the money from tickets. let me give you an apt comparison. Facebook is at its core user generated content. Like a phone company. They, like the phone company, provide a means of communication, and like the phone company don't own or are held responsible for content because it would be ludicrous. And unlike the phone company, Facebook actually does something about "bad content". Your comparison is super bad on every level. Like stunningly bad. I’m sort of impressed. Facebook isn’t a means of communication, its an advertising platform. When AT&T starts reading me ads for neo nazi websites before they connect my calls, they might be similar. People use Facebook to communicate and instead of paying a subscription fee, they get targeted ads. I don't think that makes Facebook an advertising platform. If I could get a phone line to my house that I could use by listening to an ad before I make a call instead of paying a monthly subscription I'd be a lot more interested in it. Where does almost all of facebook’s revenue come from? That argument doesn't necessarily follow. A communication service can make advertising revenue and still be a communication service. Why the users use it is to communicate. Why the sponsors use it is to advertise. Why the big data harvesting firms use it is to collect data. It is a social network that sells its user data to advertising firms and offers ads on its network. It also has communication hooks, but that is only to assure users continue to use the service. The user’s are facebook’s product, which they sell to advertisers and other groups. The people using the site to communicate have never been its customers.
It's not possible to narrow it down in the way you are trying to do. You might as well say that the chickens at a chicken farm have never been customers and so calling it a chicken raising facility (or chicken farm) is wrong.
Facebook has a multilayered revenue generation system. They provide a service to individuals who pay for it with their attention and data. They then sell that attention on directly to advertisers and process the data themselves to create marketable information for third parties.
You're attempting to argue "it's not only A, therefore it must be B" and it's just not working.
|
On September 22 2017 02:31 Velr wrote:
Butbut freespeech.
There is memeing
There is trolling
But there is also plain hate camouflaged as news or truth.
And we need benevolent overlords to distinguish between the three on our behalf and punish the guilty.
Two years later: You did it wrong. I never meant to police speech!
To the extent there's existing laws for criminal harassment, it's fine. To the extent that facebook is a private company and able to create its platform as it likes, when it steps too far over the line, other platforms will rise to take its place.
It kind of reminds me of these comments from the liberal Barro (that hates Trump but still has his head screwed on straight). There's this pernicious idea that simply eradicating speech you think is hate disguised as news or truth will be advantageous to society. You're just going to prompt this reaction from ordinary citizens that are legitimately concerned that someone calls their nuanced viewpoint "hate." (And queue the "the solution is for people to hate less" crowd here). The political language is already there on some media outlets and the leftist fringe. Some speech is hate speech, hate speech is violence, violence justifies counter-violence--get your clubs and masks we're gonna label a jewish conservative a hateful white supremacist and make a stand against oppression.
It sounds like people want more Trumps and think they can look back and say "we didn't expect our common sense hate speech measures to produce a backlash like this! Americans outside coasts and metros must be more hateful and racist than we thought!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
