Slashdot Mirror
Mark Zuckerberg Wants The Government To Help Police Internet Content (bbc.com)
"Mark Zuckerberg says regulators and governments should play a more active role in controlling internet content," according to the BBC, calling for new laws governing harmful content, election integrity, privacy, and data portability.
An anonymous reader quotes their report: In an op-ed published in the Washington Post, Facebook's chief says the responsibility for monitoring harmful content is too great for firms alone... "Lawmakers often tell me we have too much power over speech, and frankly I agree," Mr Zuckerberg writes... In brief, Mr Zuckerberg calls for the following things:
- Common rules that all social media sites need to adhere to, enforced by third-party bodies, to control the spread of harmful content
- All major tech companies to release a transparency report every three months, to put it on a par with financial reporting
- Stronger laws around the world to protect the integrity of elections, with common standards for all websites to identify political actors
- Laws that not only apply to candidates and elections, but also other "divisive political issues", and for laws to apply outside of official campaign periods
- New industry-wide standards to control how political campaigns use data to target voters online
- More countries to adopt privacy laws like the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which came into force last year
- A "common global framework" that means these laws are all standardised globally, rather than being substantially different from country to country
- Clear rules about who's responsible for protecting people's data when they move it from one service to another
Zuckerberg believes the same regulations should apply to all web sites to make it easier to stop the spread of "harmful content." He also says Facebook will be creating "an independent body so people can appeal our decisions" when content is taken.
An anonymous reader quotes their report: In an op-ed published in the Washington Post, Facebook's chief says the responsibility for monitoring harmful content is too great for firms alone... "Lawmakers often tell me we have too much power over speech, and frankly I agree," Mr Zuckerberg writes... In brief, Mr Zuckerberg calls for the following things:
- Common rules that all social media sites need to adhere to, enforced by third-party bodies, to control the spread of harmful content
- All major tech companies to release a transparency report every three months, to put it on a par with financial reporting
- Stronger laws around the world to protect the integrity of elections, with common standards for all websites to identify political actors
- Laws that not only apply to candidates and elections, but also other "divisive political issues", and for laws to apply outside of official campaign periods
- New industry-wide standards to control how political campaigns use data to target voters online
- More countries to adopt privacy laws like the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which came into force last year
- A "common global framework" that means these laws are all standardised globally, rather than being substantially different from country to country
- Clear rules about who's responsible for protecting people's data when they move it from one service to another
Zuckerberg believes the same regulations should apply to all web sites to make it easier to stop the spread of "harmful content." He also says Facebook will be creating "an independent body so people can appeal our decisions" when content is taken.
I thought the idea was that information wants to be free, and we shouldn't restrict content (unless it's clearly illegal, like child porn). Even if it's content you don't agree with...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Does this man really want to turn this country into Mao Zedong's China?
Zuckerberg calling government for help? He must fear a FTC investigation.
Clean up your own shit, Fuckerberg. Your ad network is full of garbage because you have decided not to spend the money that it takes to keep it not shit-filled.
Unfortunately for the rest of us, the truth is that your business model doesn't work if you have to pay humans to moderate content. But, don't worry. In the US, you can continue to buy Congresspeople, and the rest of us non-billionaires just have to eat shit. You'll be fine.
I don't respond to AC's.
sounds more like he is trying to save money and get the government to foot the bill for moderating his and others websites.
Mark Zuckerberg is THE biggest threat to the internet that the world has ever seen.
Mark Zuckerberg is a threat to everything the internet was. He's a threat to openness, freedom, end user control, and privacy.
He's a threat to our societies outside the internet, too. His power grab is making ripples in a much bigger pond.
Some people even think he is a threat to the very idea of independent thought.
Zuckerberg is the typical tool who calls upon the government to bail him out of a problem he can't solve himself. Maybe he should check from the original Facebook authors he stole the code from maybe they have ideas he cant seem to come up with. Better yet lets close down Facebook. Its not the internet that is the problem is the CEO's with no technical aptitude that need to go.
Screw You Mark - take RESPONSIBILITY
I think he just wants the .gov to take the heavy lifting while he take the PROFITS. No I say. Let the White Right blab hate and take the consequences. The .gov's responsibility is to thump you when you put profits over oversight. Your platform, your responsibility.
the 1st amendment will make it hard / end up with long list of court cases.
There have long been laws against certain things like child porn, plagiarism, and defamation. There is a democratic process for drawing these boundaries, and a formal justice system for interpreting and enforcing them. When policing speech is delegated to universities, private companies, etc. they can draw the boundaries a lot tighter, and enforce them arbitrarily. We'd be better off if Facebook, youtube etc acted as common carriers more or less.
He knows the government is about to come down hard on Facebook, which would put them at a competitive disadvantage vs other advertising-based giants like Google, so rather than take that hit alone he wants everyone to suffer the same fate so they don't gain any advantage on him.
Common rules: Set by Germany over history? Spain over Catalonia? Communist China over the real China Taiwan? The UK over word use online?
Release a transparency report: The EU can show who got reported and removed. How many internet users are getting interviewed by police about their use of words online. What new tax was paid on every internet link in the EU.
Stronger laws around the world to protect the integrity of elections. Support one side of politics. Talk about any other politics and get removed and reported.
Laws to apply outside of official campaign periods. The freedom to support one side of politics before and after any approved election.
New industry-wide standards. No freedom of speech. No freedom after speech. Blasphemy laws can be used globally.
More countries to adopt privacy laws like the European Union. A EU link tax and more EU censorship.
A "common global framework". Censorship.
Clear rules about who's responsible for protecting people's data. Ad brands get to have their approved ads track users globally. No ad blocking software.
All enforced by NGO's, political parties, theocracies, ad brands, police, think tanks, the EU, social media brands and mil govs.
Freedom of speech and freedom after speech is looking great again.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
We have free speech, so as long as his company is based in the US no government has the right to "police content," even on his shit-tier platform.
Money is what this is about.
Zuck's comments can be boiled down to: It costs us too much money to maintain a hoard of people and machines to monitor the content on our sites. We want the government to take over that expense to both lay it at the feet of the taxpayer and take over the bad PR censoring and making decisions on content gets us.
Zuckerberg wants to retain all the benefits ( data mining ) that Facebook currently enjoys with the people that are connected via his platform.
However, he wants to dump the responsibilities for moderating said platform on anyone but Facebook.
This way, if $objectionable_item_of_the_month is found on Facebook, it's not Facebook's fault.
Requires a lot of time, effort and money to police your own systems when they get this big. Especially when you start taking
into account that different countries have different laws / rules you must adhere to if you want to keep a presence there.
The bigger a company is, the more easily it can withstand regulatory compliance costs, while its smaller competitors will go out of business or get bought out by larger ones. There are countless examples in history. It's about money, pure and simple.
Government(s): "Fix it so it's better!"
Mark: "What would you like it to look like?"
Governments: "We don't know! You decide! But we'll know it if we see it, and will punish you if we don't like it!" ...He's just asking for the kind of regulatory oversight that most communications businesses eventually receive.
I don't do Facebook and I wish it would go away. But he's not wrong here.
That way, he doesn't have to pay for any of it and totally absolved of any responsibility.
how about we just legally recognize social networks 8n the same manner we recognize other subversive addictions. like we do with the feedback cycle of an abusive relationship, or a crack addiction, and remove any legitamite commercial ave. if people want a sociAl neyworks, they better not involve money. lets push them to the dark web and out of casual influence in pop culture.
- Common rules that all social media sites need to adhere to, enforced by third-party bodies, to control the spread of harmful content
- All major tech companies to release a transparency report every three months, to put it on a par with financial reporting
- Stronger laws around the world to protect the integrity of elections, with common standards for all websites to identify political actors
- Laws that not only apply to candidates and elections, but also other "divisive political issues", and for laws to apply outside of official campaign periods
- New industry-wide standards to control how political campaigns use data to target voters online
- More countries to adopt privacy laws like the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which came into force last year
- A "common global framework" that means these laws are all standardised globally, rather than being substantially different from country to country
- Clear rules about who's responsible for protecting people's data when they move it from one service to another
MZ isn't the only one ideas.
- Mercilessly berate anyone and everyone still using Facebook
- Block ALL Facebooks domains and networks on systems and networks you manage.
- Lodge complaints with all public facing companies still advertising on Facebook
- Shit post content on Facebook critical of each and every advertiser
- File lawsuits against every website on the planet using Facebook tracking bugs
- Launch Ad campaigns critical of Facebook
- Rigorous campaign of publically shaming employees of Facebook
- Contact your gov representatives to express concern for Facebook on privacy and anti-trust grounds.
- Troll MZ anywhere he makes a public appearance.
- Large scale persistent protests on and around 1-hacker way
Exactly. Facebook and others who support a wide range of views (unlike a single topic forum, or something like that) should just accept that some people will be offended some of the time. They should block illegal stuff and and leave everything else alone as a platform.
At the same time, they can still create easy ways for people to voluntarily restrict what they see. If you don't want anything from group X, or about topic Y, then make it easy if that shows up to just block it from your feed so it no longer exists for you.
Yeah, they'll get accused of "supporting" Z when really they're just tolerating Z, just like they tolerate everything else, but going beyond that to pick sides in cultural wars and the like doesn't end well. There is a bright line of legal/illegal, stick to that and tell the people who complain how to block it for themselves.
The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
It's much easier for Facebook to be able to treat the entire world the same way. That shows him as another filthy megalomaniac globalist. Countries still exist, the want to determine their own course, fuck Zuckerberg and anyone that tries to stand in the way of free speech and personal liberty.
Big business loves regulation. They can afford whole departments to comply with it, but small upstart competitors can't.
They've seen the winds are blowing and are trying to manipulate it so that they are the governments "partner". Why? Because governments have demonstrated time and again that they view "privacy" as something that applies to the private sector, not to government agencies. They feel it's their right (and duty honestly) to be able to know anything and everything you do online (yes, they propose "safeguards" but those are always controlled by the same government, which means they're speed bumps at most).
An ideal situation for Facebook is having governments:
1. Tell Facebook they have to log anything and everything.
2. Tell Facebook they can't disclose what they log because "National Security".
Facebook would of course b*tch and moan an appropriate amount when being "forced" into this, only to laugh their asses off when they were back in the office.
...or even better a third party authorized by the government.
And, exactly, who will decide what "harmful content" is. Perhaps Trump? Perhaps AOC? Perhaps Sanders? Perhaps ISIS?
Zuckerberg, go read the First Amendment - no, go ahead, I'll wait. There are no big words in it so you should be able to understand it eventually. Okay read it again. And, one more time, Very. Slowly. This. Time.
Okay, now, did you notice the "abridge the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press" part?
And, don't forget, some people think Facebook itself is "harmful".
See above.
Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading
Was having a conversation at work and we were talking about fake news and misinformation in general being harmful to people. I expressed my concern at the idea of, and my surprise people weren't talking about it already, misinformation becoming a crime and it becoming a slippery slope to the end of freedom of speech. This sounds like the first step in that direction thanks to Mr. Fuckerberg and his creation.
Chewbacon
The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
We should let President Trump decide what is allowed on sites like Facebook and Slashdot. That way there's no more "enemy of the people." He knows what's best for us.
Most of this trouble started when YOU started policing the Internet. And doing it badly.
Please stop censoring your users when they offend you or the people you are allied with Leave it I
I know you want the 'government' to 'help' police the Internet. But the Internet does not need policing, nor is it you or people like you who would be trustworthy policers of the Internet, or anything else. While you should not be trusted even with your own corporation and its platforms, they are yours to do with as you wish. Leave others alone, and do not harm those not yours.
This will not go well for you or us if you persist.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Please don't misquote the Talmud.
How about some new laws restricting government expansionism?
*Holds breath*
Requiem for the American Dream
The problem is that content that people "don't agree with" is now what many consider restrictable, banable, equivalent to violence (or in their mind "actually" violence). The reaction to "offensive speech" is no longer to mock and ignore the speaker, it is now to silence the speaker (including the use of threats and force).
I'm not sure we can count on a modern interpretation of "clearly illegal".
Actually we have good policy for what should be banned, a tangible and realistic threat of violence.
I am not a lawyer but my recollection from some readings I did a few years ago is that the US Supreme Court ruled that speech that tangibly threatens or incites violence can be banned. It all depends on the context of the speech not the words themselves, the context must include a tangible and realistic fear of violence. A satirical or rhetorical or similar threat would not be banned.
Similarly having your feelings greatly hurt, your inner self denied or dismissed, etc would not count as violence no matter how much "pain" you feel.
More like, Zuck is trying to regulate his competition to death, while also absolving himself from the shit that's going on on his platform. This strategy worked for many a megacorp. Megacrops can afford the costs of compliance. Smaller companies can't.
Well, it's a puerile response from me, and just what the hell is "harmful content", anyway? Smells like leftist claptrap to me. Oh boy, let's make it criminal to hurt your precious little darling feelings. And thus, Free Speech is dead.
Ruby Neural Evolution of Augmenting Topologies
at first glance, shifting the blame of ones actions of self-governance is not a good idea. government is to manage and regulate good public policy. the FB TOS basically says, we are a public bulletin board. you put up a note and the public is free to read it, copy and paste it, do whatever. if you put another sticky over your note that says, for my friends only instead of public, then that means for their friends only (except we at Facebook can look at it too to determine if we should allow it and of course digest it and disseminate however we feel froggy). good stuff. here is my recipe for chocolate chip cookies i bought for 25 with a coupon from inside a box of cereal.
Zuckerberg needs to shut the fuck up.
You can't be a common carrier "more or less". Either you are, or you aren't.
Facebook isn't. Its business model depends on making value judgements about the content people post. It's a publisher, simple as that.
It still amazes me how people don't see that.
Mark Zuckerbeg really wants the government to construct a moat around his business to make sure that other companies will find it difficult to break his stranglehold over social networking.
It would be a First Amendment violation or a government to get involved in policing Facebook as Zuckerberg wants to. Zuck exerts fine-grained control over the politics allowed on his platform with such actions as banning white separatist posting while allowing black separatist posts. Governments would Constitutionally be limited to policing the small number of specific First Amendment exceptions that have been judicially established over the years:
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/9...
So facebook's business model is being the thought police? That's fucking retarded.
Why dont you keep doing everything you can to avoid paying taxes.. while asking the government to do more for you?
That isnâ(TM)t what he said. Facebook will decide what is best for its business by making judgements about what it allows to be published on its product and how they affect its ability to run its business. This can be guided by government regulations and public opinion. Do keep up.
he literally said
Facebook isn't. Its business model depends on making value judgements about the content people post.
Thats "Thought police"
No, itâ(TM)s a private service. I donâ(TM)t think you can think critically. I can see why you think youâ(TM)re a victim and challenge people to fights on the internet.
Youâ(TM)d be fired in two seconds if you were CEO and there was huge public outcry and your stock and public image were faltering you stood your ground going âoeno, that means we are the thought police! Your stockholders would say, were a publisher and your killing revenue!
How about this;
Don't moderate!
Internet is for 14 year-olds and older. .. Parent.
your child - your problem & responsibility to
If a company is not a #Publisher,
they can not Censor - unless illegal in the USA.
What the F is wrong with U people? Really, U power grasping evil.
https://twitter.com/StevWork/s...
most of his proposals he can just implement on facebook if he wants to, there is nobody saying that he can't.
his proposals, his own social network, he doesn't need to wait for same laws to come into effect.
On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
"- Stronger laws around the world to protect the integrity of elections, with common standards for all websites to identify political actors"
Yes and you know who's sure to follow these laws... government agencies!
There have long been laws against certain things like child porn, plagiarism, and defamation.
One of these things is not like the other. Can you guess which one it is?
Child porn. Pictures of naked children, even in suggestive poses, was perfectly legal when I was a child.
So no, not all of those have been illegal for a long time. Can you identify *WHY* the ban on child porn is so recent?
Because, constitutionally, there is no basis for making it illegal and it is a direct infringement on the First Amendment.
Go ahead, I will give you time. Think of *ANY* reason child porn should be illegal other than it is detestable. I can help a little with this...
In order for child porn to be created, a child has to have something illegal done to them.
Well, yeah, but I can go on the Internet right now and find a video documenting a person being carved into smaller and smaller pieces until that person is dead. All without anesthesia and without the permission of the person being murdered. As terrible as child abuse is, I would consider the act of carving up a person unwillingly is worse... and yet we can watch the Mexican drug cartels doing their thing up close and in technicolor... so, child porn is documentation of a crime, but it is not actually a crime itself... until you criminalize possession of certain 1s and 0s.
Another reason is that the production of child porn can be done for money if the imagery is legal to sell. We all know how people are about money and it is guaranteed that people would find children to molest if they thought they could sell the images afterwards.
You know what? This subject is too disturbing. I am done.
TL;DR, child porn is documentation of a crime that is so heinous that the Attorney General at the time (80s?) thought that enacting a law counter to the Constitution was a worthwhile trade.
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
“They will advocate some institutionalized changes in the way social media should work. Every change will involve compliance costs. Facebook will make sure that it can complyand that its competitors cannot without great expense. That will give them a distinct advantage in the marketplace, make it more difficult for startups to compete, and guarantee this platform a leading place by law. This is why Mark readily agreed to be regulated. Regulations always work to the advantage of the largest market players.”
https://www.aier.org/article/f...