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!
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.
No. He wants to turn the internet from the wild west into a dystopian surveillance society.
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
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.
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.
Facebook, along with Google and Twitter, don't want to burden theemselves with the costs of properly perusing the content and so use as many algorithms as possible. However the flaws to that approach quickly become apparent and so now they want the governments to take on the responsibility of doing so along with the monetary burden.
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.
I doubt he wants to turn it into anything.
It's just that in the event of someone legislating anything, he doesn't want to pay for it.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
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.
...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
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.