Share good ideas and conversation.   Login, Join Us, or Take a Tour!
comment by b_b
b_b  ·  103 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: ‘I really don’t know how Zuckerberg and co sleep at night’

Probably on a really expensive bed. His project to bring "the internet" to poor people by basically just giving them facebook for free seems to be working really well, actually. The trouble is we sort of expect him to give a fuck what happens on FB. He doesn't. He will never. It isn't in his interest. His interest is in ensuring that the most people are on for the most amount of time. It's up to us to stop that. And I don't mean by deleting, noble of an idea as that might be. I mean there has to be consequences for the company's behavior. I would get attacked by a lot of libs for my thoughts on this topic, but I think the time for the days of providers not being responsible for content is past. AT&T isn't responsible for what you say on the telephone, because AT&T provides a utility. Unless or until FB is deemed to be a utility, they should be held to account for the havoc they cause globally. I don't know what that looks like, but clearly the status quo isn't working.




tacocat  ·  103 days ago  ·  link  ·  

rrrrr  ·  75 days ago  ·  link  ·  

    Unless or until FB is deemed to be a utility, they should be held to account for the havoc they cause globally. I don't know what that looks like, but clearly the status quo isn't working.

Holding websites responsible for what users post is a hard thing to implement without undesirable side-effects:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/02/house-vote-fosta-win-censorship

b_b  ·  75 days ago  ·  link  ·  

That's very true, but not holding them accountable clearly also has undesirable side effects. Good policy would at least attempt to balance the concerns on both sides.

kantos  ·  103 days ago  ·  link  ·  

    I would get attacked by a lot of libs for my thoughts on this topic, but I think the time for the days of providers not being responsible for content is past.

So what you're advocating is for utilities to be held liable for their customers' use of their product? Or held liable for the what their customers' actions are as a result of the utilities' purpose?

I can understand the logic behind your AT&T example - some dumb robbers using AT&T phones to coordinate a heist won't come back to AT&T, especially since they can help provide records in court - not so much how it extends to Fb, re: havoc.

Or I'm completely missing your point.

b_b  ·  101 days ago  ·  link  ·  

    So what you're advocating is for utilities to be held liable for their customers' use of their product? Or held liable for the what their customers' actions are as a result of the utilities' purpose?

No quite the opposite. Utilities are not held responsible for their users' behavior specifically because they're public utilities, and are therefore subject to extreme regulatory constraints.

On the other hand if I own a house and my tenant, without my knowledge, is selling drugs out of the house, then the government can hold me liable to some extent, depending on the circumstances. My house is not public, and I am responsible for what people do in it.

FB, Google, Twitter, et al. want it both ways. They want no regulatory oversight, and they want to never be held accountable for what is done with their products. I happen to find that disagreeable.

kantos  ·  100 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Understood, thanks for the explanation.