Slashdot Mirror
Facebook Now Deletes Posts That Financially Endanger, Trick People (techcrunch.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from TechCrunch: It's not just inciting violence, threats and hate speech that will get Facebook to remove posts by you or your least favorite troll. Endangering someone financially, not just physically, or tricking them to earn a profit are now also strictly prohibited. Facebook today spelled out its policy with more clarity in hopes of establishing a transparent set of rules it can point to when it enforces its policy in the future. "We do not, for example, allow content that could physically or financially endanger people, that intimidates people through hateful language, or that aims to profit by tricking people using Facebook," its VP of policy Richard Allen published today. Web searches show this is the first time Facebook has used that language regarding financial attacks.
"We do not, for example, allow content that [...] aims to profit by tricking people using Facebook,"
That's our job, dammit!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
...they sure do edit and moderate a lot of the content. Weird.
"A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
It's their platform, and you are not directly paying to access it. They are free to censor or filter content as they wish, and you are free to walk away from it at any time, just like any other online platform that has existed since usenet.
Why do people still treat it like they are entitled to do as they wish with zero consequence? Would you walk into a police station with an NWA "Fuck the police" shit on and expect to be left alone? Of course you wouldn't. If you choose to pull bullshit in someone else's house, expect to be called out. If you do not want to be called out, keep walking.
[Sorry, this signature is unavailable in your country/region]
And yet at the same time facebook sends out hundreds of thousands of emails a day to people to get them to join facebook (which itself financially endangers and tricks people).
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
I think it is worth considering the other side of the coin here, though.
The 'net isn't what it was back in the days when we read usenet with tin. It has become massively centralized, and controlled by a very small number of corporations. To a great many people, the 'net IS Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Google.
As a result, for all intents and purposes, they are the public square. It may be a privately owned public square, but it is the public square. It's not like protesting with a sign in a private mall; there literally is no other place on the Internet where one can have a reasonable expectation of being heard than the "primary set" of platforms.
So, while yes, these are privately owned platforms, they have also been allowed an unprecedented amount of power over information, thought, and speech. I think that we need to be very careful about giving them carte blanche to silence voices and thoughts that those who control these entities do not agree with.
Check your premises.
...they sure do edit and moderate a lot of the content. Weird.
Not being a publisher does not mean "anything goes". Even old fashioned telephone companies did not have an anything goes and would take action against sufficiently vexatious users. To be clear: not being a publisher does not imply that users are allowed post arbitrarily bad stuff no matter how bad, nor does it imply that they must allow such things.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Some people are susceptible to "lifestyle" advertising, itching to personally enjoy a scenario they see played out in an image or other advertisement. Some of those people are financially illiterate or can't make good judgment about how well they can handle a monthly payment. The same ad may be only passingly interesting to a normal person, but be a "financially dangerous trick" to someone who processes it (and life) differently. That's not FB's problem to sort out.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
I never thought I'd see the day when the Left likes a huge corporation buying up all the lawns in town and then banning lawn signs.
"Hey, it's private property after all!"
Normalization of censorship - done by the big tech mega corp.
Sort of. But publishing companies and newspapers have always decided what they want to publish and what they don't. Internet comment boards have often had moderators that delete posts that violate the site's rules. In American media in general, you won't find too many stories that are more than mildly critical of the United States and its policies. They get on board with the program, and people like Phil Donahue lose their jobs. Stories that make big advertisers look bad often get spiked. It has always been thus; it started long before Facebook.
Facebook has an interest in keeping its site clean and hospitable. It's about money, as are so many things in our society. Therefore, assholes and charlatans get bounced. If they get too heavy handed, and start censoring views or opinions that are expressed civilly but that management doesn't agree with, people are likely to leave the platform. That is also not in their interest. Facebook is under a lot of pressure these days, what with their platform being used for propaganda and social manipulation (manipulation other than the kind Facebook itself engages in), so they are trying to strike a new balance. Personally, though I do have an account, I don't use Facebook much at all. I understand their business model (the Cambridge Analytica business was not at all surprising to me) and don't want to give them much information about myself.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
A bake shop is their own platform.
A T-Shirt shot is their own platform.
But in both those cases, "Censorship" was dressed up in other civil liberty arguments.
So, which is it? Free Speech or not? Their platform or not? Why is it "Their platform" when it is something you agree with, but something else when it isn't?
The worst part is that many are okay with compelled speech with government guns backing it up? And they don't even see the actual threat in that.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
... or people could just use other parts of the Internet.
I don't respond to AC's.
It's their platform, and you are not directly paying to access it.
I can buy that mentality from the anti-Net Neutrality set, who believe the internet is a place for private businesses to engage in the private exchange of monies for private purposes and profit.
What blows my mind is when I hear some leftists make this argument (and they do, quite often, especially in regards to the censorship of speech they find unfavorable), then claim to believe that privately-owned service providers do not have a right to throttle or limit access to content, despite being engaged in a similar form of business, because they believe the internet is a public utility.
Like, be consistent with your values or shut the fuck up.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Stupid people deserve to be separated from their money. For example, star citizen backers.
No, of course they don't. Fraud and deception are not okay, even against easy marks.
Are Star Citizens those people who want to be citizens of a satellite and have it recognized by the UN? There are all kinds of wacky people in this world, eh?
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
...they sure do edit and moderate a lot of the content. Weird.
That's a good point.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
This is some serious paternalism.
Those of you who like this - what happens when FB (and Google, etc. since they are all working together now) decide that stuff you are interested in is something they must protect the public against?
Or is my post to dangerous, and it might trick you into thinking? Best remove it ...
what about comcast ad's that say one price but hide lot's of added fees
> But in both those cases, "Censorship" was dressed up in other civil liberty arguments.
The baker was being forced to create content. Facebook (or Slashdot) is only required to merely tolerate what you post. It's a VAST difference that you're just casually glossing over.
The baker is also is just one guy, much more like you than a global corporation controlling a platform used by BILLIONS with a large enough share of the market to be subject to the Sherman Act.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
... or people could just use other parts of the Internet.
"Why do you need to be in the public square when there's this back alley available to you?"
Check your premises.
It was never the responsibility of Ma Bell to deal with wire fraud. That was always the job of the government. It's not the role of private corporations to run petty fiefdoms as if they were Robber Barons.
As others have implied, it's quite strange that the same people who will screech "free speech" when discussing FCC regulations will completely gloss over (or even happily embrace) corporate censorship.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Is this going to result in removal of posts by televangelists asking for donations to help God save the donors?
Not only is the God they are peddling an illusion, but televangelists usually spend the money on their own pleasure and comfort instead of any missionary activities of their religion.
They are both useless to the donor and actively fraudulent in their own universe.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled"
If Facebook is promoting a certain candidate or party, then it can run afoul of campaign finance laws. If it is shown they are acting in a political manner, they open themselves up to being prosecuted for illegal contributions. If they are running ads, for the benefit of political entities it is clear cut that they are making in-kind contributions to the political entity. If they are suppressing one side of political speak it is less clear cut, but the same argument could be made. How much is exclusive advertising worth? The value in the commercial world is real. A bank could sign and exclusive contract with the local newspaper to be the only bank that runs ads in the newspaper. This generally requires significantly more money than a normal ad buy, since the newspaper is forgoing the opportunity to receive ads from competing banks.
Remember FOSTA-SESTA? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
If politicians can run around and suddenly start holding site operators liable for one kind of content, how long until they start holding them liable for all types of damning content? Site operators might just be trying to get ahead of the curve, because of the giant can of worms that FOSTA-SESTA opened up.
If someone wants to cry about First Amendment violations, this is really the avenue you need to approach it from. This is the government forcing a proxy to censor speech by making that proxy liable for any criminal activity that speech perpetrates.
They want it both ways. "You can't blame us for the content, we're not a publisher" and "You can't blame us, look at all we're doing to solve the problem" Typical corporate CYA--claim all the arguments you can, even if they contradict each other.
I'm confused... I thought Facebook was the back alley...?
I don't respond to AC's.
Sure. And they canb also compile their own OS and build their own car and grow their own food.
Just because it is possible in theory, it does not mean it is realistic.
Discusing "what is possible" is a nice thing to do as a thought project with a few beers in a pub.
Discussing "what is" is a nice tjing if you want toii actually get things done.
The reality is that for most people "The Internet" is "FB, Alphabet and a few select apps on their phone." Even if this is 1.000 companies, it is not much varieaty when you look at the world population. And many of these are the same under a different name. e.g. GP said YouTube and Google. That is the same.
Anmd yes, it is an issue.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
So what you're saying is, that financial information on Facebook has been validated and vetted by Facebook as accurate? That anything I read on Facebook is a solid financial recommendation and will make me rich
Thank you, Mark Zuckerberg! I don't need my broker anymore, I have Facebook!
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Just because it is possible in theory, it does not mean it is realistic.
Setting up a web site is incredibly easy, and incredibly cheap, if not free.
The reality is that for most stupid people "The Internet" is "FB, Alphabet and a few select apps on their phone."
I don't respond to AC's.
Big projection on the screeching there. Seems that you reckon if you screech loudly enough about screeching then people work think it isn't you.
I said phone companies would block sufficiently vexatious users. This is true. You are attempting to deny it by deflection. I guess you have a bit of a reality problem.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
After recent headlines I fail to see why anyone with a brain would be using facebook?
If you try and post or message that link, Facebook gives this error:
You can't post this because it has a blocked link
The content or the page you're trying to share includes a link that our security systems detected to be unsafe:
Which is, of course, nonsense.
Facebook has an interest in keeping its site clean and hospitable
I think Zuckerbergs testimony on Capital Hill is relevant particularly with Cruz. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Sure, Facebook has an interest in keeping its site clean but they cannot be both a platform (neutral public forum) and a publisher at the same time. They are either responsible for all the content on their site or not. They are either expressing their political speech or they are enabling others to speak. Facebook wants it both ways and the censorship culture and normalization has enabled Facebook and other social media sites to abuse the rights of others and use their position to negatively impact the political discourse.
What is even more worrying is that the culture of censorship is growing. There must be some irony that the left is defending giant international companies to trample over the rights of individuals because of some misguided attempt to sanitize the internet.
I don't think you understand my post. I think we're on the same side.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
My heart wants to agree with you, but my head knows better. You cant control where the people go, and the underlying layer of the internet is intact. I could set up direct comms to your LAN right now, trivially.
Good-bye
The thing is that people who lost money due to scams spread through social networks could start sue the (juicy massively rich) networks' owners on the ground that they facilitated the scam spreading.
Until recently, most of the internet giants managed to get considered as a sort of utility company.
They shouldn't be liable of anything said on their platform. They are not responsible for what *other people* say, they are only here to provide a neutral platform.
(The same way you wouldn't accuse a power company to have provided electricity to the computer of a scam runner. They just provide the power, they aren't responsible for what people plug into it).
The thing is the situation has slowly started to change.
Search engine forced to remove content due to various legislation (DCMA, right-to-forget, etc.)
More recently Facebook getting under close scrutiny for having potentially had an influence on recent US election through spreading of falsified information.
In this context the big actors are starting to get afraid of potential lawsuits.
They don't want to get sued and potentially found liable for monetary loss due to scam spread through their platform, they want to cover their financial asses against this : censoring is an cheap easy tool to do it.
And to the hell if that happens to completely trample the free speech of sizable chunk of online people : money rules.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
yep, it's their platform - they can do whatever they want that's legal...and they do...if you want to change the laws elect people to do that...
nothing to see here - move along
elect people to change that...or vote with your feet (or eyeballs)...
nothing to see here - move along
"Most of the major ills of the world have been caused by well-meaning people who ignored the principle of individual freedom, except as applied to themselves, and who were obsessed with fanatical zeal to improve the lot of mankind-in-the-mass through some pet formula of their own. The harm done by ordinary criminals, murderers, gangsters, and thieves is negligible in comparison with the agony inflicted upon human beings by the professional do-gooders, who attempt to set themselves up as gods on earth and who would ruthlessly force their views on all others with the abiding assurance that the end justifies the means." - Isabel Patterson, The God of the Machine
Why do people still treat it like they are entitled to do as they wish with zero consequence? Would you walk into a police station with an NWA "Fuck the police" shit on and expect to be left alone?
I get your argument and somewhat agree with you, but I think your analogy is poor.
If I walk into a police station to pay a parking ticket, say, it should not matter what clothes I wear or what message is printed because it's a public space owned by the city and I have to go there to do something I'm legally required to do (or face worse punishment). And I expect the police to do their job.
That said, if I go to an officer's residence wearing that shirt, yeah, he has every right to tell me to leave.
Aren't ads just messaging designed to trick people into making bad financial decisions?
Now, I'm not a lawyer, so I may be wrong. But, as I understand it, when you open your property the public, you give up certain rights.
Here in California, as I understand it, if I have a store open to the public, I can't ban solicitors. However, I can ban commercial solicitors--free speech rights do not include the right to sell somebody something.
So I can't stop the people collecting donations for whales. I can't stop people collecting donations for the families of martyrs. I can stop people from selling cookies or sneakers or random junk from their garage. I can also regulate where they are. No, you can't collect donations by the front door, but you can set up your table over in the corner.
Facebook is more like McDonald's.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Because the web has caused the privatization of public discourse
No. That was clearly done by TV before the web. That was clearly done by radio before TV. That was clearly done by newspapers before radio. That was clearly done by monarchs before free press. Shall I continue? Each iteration has allowed the creation of platforms to become easier, but let's not kid ourselves here, the big ones that everyone notices are organized because unorganized ones don't tend to become massively big things since they just reduce down to pretty much background noise. With that organization comes rules and policies and so forth that inherently censor some groups. What Facebook et al are doing isn't unique, only its medium is. Does that make censorship in general right or wrong? That's a point that's debatable for the ages, but what social media groups are "currently" doing is inline with what has come before and we have seen progress from kings of yore to Internet with that system. So I'd argue that while it would be great to have completely open everything in theory, the actual implementation of that would be horrible, and that the current implementation is balanced enough to get us to whatever the next point on the tech tree of the universe is.
I need you and everyone to understand that this whole topic is arguing a topic that's been brought up since the Classical and Hellenistic Period. How does one allow the free exchange of ideas without the entire thing devolving into madness? Guess what, thirty-six centuries later, we still haven't figured it out. And it's starting to seem like the answer is to the "where does it stop?!" question you are asking is, "somewhere, people need to keep their heads up, but ultimately it stops somewhere." Blanket openness is clearly not an answer, because that's just saying "society as a whole is just lazy and if we don't have complete openness, then we're just a slippery slope away from having all our rights taken away."
Don't worry, I'm sure you'll change your tune once it's taken over and turned against you, though
That is the entire point. It stops at some point because as much as we on Slashdot like to diss the general public, they do ultimately seem to understand when basic rights are being trampled unjustly, Who determines that? Well we all sort of do, there's not a hard and fast rule to that and I get it, that makes some of the hard liner type folks a little uneasy. Society doesn't have clear distinct lines for every single thing. So there's two things a person can do about that.
One, accept that society doesn't have clearly defined boundaries and that you'll have to do your part if and when the time comes.
Two, don't accept that and get all upset that humanity seemingly just can't get its crap together and live your entire life in frustration.
If you are intent on hanging your hat on the latter, well there's not much anyone can do to help you. We're basically always going to be having this discussion until the end of time. Advocacy for human rights isn't a spectator sport. But if you're willing to consider the first point, then you'll have to first start working on the whole, "am I ready to die on this hill or not?" thing. Once you've got a good grasp on that, you'll need to ditch the "slippy slope" argument every time something you don't agree with comes up and work on the whole "persuasive argument" thing. And trust me, there is tons of room in this debate for a rational argument, like the seemingly inequitable application of those policies, and so on. But you are going to fall far and fast if what you lead with is, "They'll be coming for you soon too! Just you watch!"
A) they enforced their own rules equally
This is pretty much the only argument that you make that has worth. To enforce something equally we would need to have sort some of "thing" (for lack of a better term) that we agreed on that could judge when a policy is being applied equally. In law, we have the court system (for better or worse) that does that (at least in theory, I'm not trying to make this an argument about the shortcomings of the US judicial system). We'd need something for that in things like EULAs and what not. The only problem is that currently those kinds of things aren't seen as have the same weight of enforcement like laws. So you're going to have this, "we don't have a system to ensure equal application" and "we can't even agree that we can compel people to abide by these rules." Long story short, if anyone wants to get anywhere on this point, we're going to need a massive overhaul to the laws currently on the books. I cannot think of anyone in US Congress ready to go down that road, but November is coming soon, so there you go.
B) if they were responsible for the content posted on their platform (hint: they're not, otherwise they'd be shut down the moment someone posted child pornography there)
Social Media sites are held responsible and liable for "some" things. I'm not going into a laundry list of what those things are, but they all ultimately require someone to attach that failing to something that is currently illegal as defined by US law. Also, there's about 500 different steps in between being a site in operation and being shutdown by the law. Posting of child porn on Facebook doesn't mean Facebook has to shut its doors. It means that Facebook needs to take reasonable steps to prevent it and remove it when found. If they didn't do at least that, then yes, we start getting into shutdown territory. It's not the binary state system that this point tries to make.
C) if they weren't (with Twitter and Youtube) the equivalent of the new town square in which people used to communicate
Well they aren't and even if they were, you can be escorted off the property of town square and into a cell at any rate depending on how egregious your act is. The town square is paid for by tax dollars and thus the public (vis-a-vis law makers) ultimately get to dictate the going and coming on the town square, but the dollars that built social groups wasn't tax payers. Now, if we have qualms with "the Internet town square" being owned by a private company, well that's going to require all of us to look deep into our hearts and really start questioning how "free" we've allowed the free market to become. There's a lot of soul searching that's really needed in the US about how much we've allowed private companies to become pretty much everything around us. But all of that aside, they're private companies and, yeah, we don't get a say to an extent. So you're point about them being a public square for information exchange is pretty lacking since we all pretty much allowed this whole thing to exist in the first place by allowing free market to trump basic rights. That's not saying free market and rights are opposites, that saying that since they aren't exact polar opposites, it becomes easy to mix the two with unexpected results. Unexpected results like leading to this wonderful thing that a lot of folks use being dictated by just a handful of people with zero recourse from the users.
Actually I would expect to be able to walk a police station with a fuck the police shirt on. It would be ironic and just expose my stupidity if I actually needed help, but I would not expect non-service, much less harm.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
The *Internet* is the public square, not Facebook, or Twitter, or YouTube,or Google. If you want to trade ultra right-wing rhetoric and/or hate speech with like-minded people, you can go to Stormfront or Free Republic or Infowars. You can create your own website too.
It would be different if the government were saying you cannot create these sites. But they're not. Nor should they. *That* would be censorship.
The internet is the public square, your website is your protest sign.
Is it censorship when mama don't allow that sort of language in her home? What Facebook is blocking is in their own home. Is it censorship to stop illegal activities? What Facebook is blocking is illegal in many countries.
Your protest sign has just been deranked and demonetized by google , GoFundMe and Paypal will not help you with funding, and people linking to you will become invisible on FB, Twitter and other social media. Good luck.
Would you walk into a police station with an NWA "Fuck the police" shit on and expect to be left alone? Of course you wouldn't.
Why not? This is exactly the kind of thing "freedom of speech" means. The police is the government, the police station is public space, and "fuck the police" is legitimate (though uncouth) political speech.
You could be stopped if you started throwing ink-pots around, or otherwise broke laws on behavior in public areas, but just wearing a message is not against the law, and neither is hurting the policemen's feelings - at least in their guise of government employees.
Looks like that's what you've been doing - that was the only coherent part of your post. The rest looks like Joe_Dragon wrote it.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
you can't Rick-roll people any more?
That would be true if A) they enforced their own rules equally
They are free to enforce their rules anyway they wish to, you agreed to their terms of service when you signed up to use it. If they have a complicated censorship mechanism they owe you zero explanation of it and it is their choice if they wish to incur public outrage by not disclosing it or enforcing it in a negative way.
B) if they were responsible for the content posted on their platform (hint: they're not, otherwise they'd be shut down the moment someone posted child pornography there)
Who says they are not responsible? Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act (FOSTA).
It's more like your phone company cutting off your phone line because they were listening in and didn't like what you were saying.
It is absolutely nothing like your phone company! They are not providing you connectivity to the internet, they provide a platform you can interact with if you agree to their terms of service. You are NOT paying for it and there are other tools online available to you to use or you can create your own and negotiate with the very same phone companies to provide priority QOS on their networks.
You are not entitled to use it, you are invited to use it - shit, the outrage over this "censorship" of Alex Jones whose own site has the same damn terms of service criteria is stupid.
I'm surprised they didn't disappear in a puff of logic. Does this mean they're getting rid of advertisements?
Cheap storage VM.
Facebook has outlawed tricking and bilking people? Does that mean Facebook is going to shut itself down? Because tricking people, (into giving up valuable information about themselves, and then profiting OFF that information,) is kind of their thing. It's what makes Facebook their money. Without that, Facebook will wither and die... (and good riddance too)!
Our reign has gone on long enough. Indeed. Summon the meteors.