Facebook has some 'splainin to do ...

[rslade]

"It's all about making money at the end of the day."

Facebook has been accused, mostly informally, with not doing enough about hateful, disturbing, or outright fraudulent content.  Facebook has countered with a fairly constant stream of claims that it is dealing with the problem.

A documentary now provides that what Facebook is doing is ineffective at best, and cosmetic or, well, fraudulent, at worst.

Facebook claims that it is dealing with the problem ...

[Early_Adopter]

Amen.

---

@rslade wrote:

"It's all about making money at the end of the day."

Facebook has been accused, mostly informally, with not doing enough about hateful, disturbing, or outright fraudulent content.  Facebook has countered with a fairly constant stream of claims that it is dealing with the problem.

A documentary now provides that what Facebook is doing is ineffective at best, and cosmetic or, well, fraudulent, at worst.

Facebook claims that it is dealing with the problem ...

---

The UK ICO fined them 500k GBP, but the main course I think happens either via the FTC or investigation under the GDPR, this is all about privacy however.

For misinformation, I’m not sure that FB  nessecarily can( subcultures are opaque)or should( FoS)police all content... but it should have a platform that will allow some form of trustworthiness analysis and fully automated APIs for sequestration and takedown of maliciously driven content via victims or third parties, that is also able to prevent interference - it’s a tall ask but It probably is one that FBs survival hinges on(unless of course the FTC just gives them the maximum fine to stop the EU from getting any money;P).

[Baechle]

Rob,

Thank you for sharing the article about the undercover investigative journalist at Facebook.

---

@rslade wrote:

"It's all about making money at the end of the day."

A documentary now provides that what Facebook is doing is ineffective at best, and cosmetic or, well, fraudulent, at worst.

There was something that the article didn’t really touch on: What do we (the public/customers of Facebook) think the standard should be?

The report disclosed that Facebook is backlogged on content review and moderation, and the current staff is unable to keep up with the review process.  There also seems to be a spectrum of what people consider acceptable content.  Who’s goalpost on acceptable content do we use?  The most restrictive one?  The least restrictive one?  A threshold on how many complaints content gets compared to total users?  Criminality?

Sincerely,

Eric B.