Content moderation is difficult, and there are many legitimate and arguable edge cases.
The existence of these edge cases and difficulty of moderation does not negate or excuse FB's overall behavior, which goes far beyond, as noted by several examples in the article.
Roger McNamee, an early investor in Facebook: “This is essentially the crack cocaine of their product. It’s the really extreme, really dangerous form of content that attracts the most highly engaged people on the platform, So they want as much extreme content as they can get.”
This is the same reason that FB makde a top level decision to leave posted a video known to be maliciously edited to make the subject look drunk or impaired -- the subject is the person 3rd in line for the Presidency of the United States. Nevermind that this effectively amplifies & legitimizes false propaganda on one of the world's largest publishing platforms.
This is the same reason that FB ignored massive interference in the US election by Cambridge Analytica, Russia, etc. The content was surprising and increased engagement time, nevermind that much of it was false and micro-targeted at people's specifically tested fears, and corrupted the electoral process.
Anything that people cannot turn their eyes away from, simply to extend "engagement" time and rack up counts of adverts displayed. The ruthless pursuit of attention in the attention economy.
The only restraint is the limit of how grotesque the content can be before people turn away, and that boundary is apparently being continually pushed forward by exposure.
Of course, they justify it all on varoius grounds ranging from 'freedom of expression', 'let the viewers decide', 'we're not editors', etc., ad nauseum.
To be clear:
This is beyond malicious, this is knowingly (or at best intentionally ignorantly) poisoning society for their own profit.
Not that this is unusual; corporations have often poisoned the water, air, & land for their own profit. Except that this is at the scale & scope of modern technology.
If we don't want the tech industry to soon be seen in the same light as the old smokestack or cigarette industries, this needs to be curbed.
The existence of these edge cases and difficulty of moderation does not negate or excuse FB's overall behavior, which goes far beyond, as noted by several examples in the article.
Roger McNamee, an early investor in Facebook: “This is essentially the crack cocaine of their product. It’s the really extreme, really dangerous form of content that attracts the most highly engaged people on the platform, So they want as much extreme content as they can get.”
This is the same reason that FB makde a top level decision to leave posted a video known to be maliciously edited to make the subject look drunk or impaired -- the subject is the person 3rd in line for the Presidency of the United States. Nevermind that this effectively amplifies & legitimizes false propaganda on one of the world's largest publishing platforms.
This is the same reason that FB ignored massive interference in the US election by Cambridge Analytica, Russia, etc. The content was surprising and increased engagement time, nevermind that much of it was false and micro-targeted at people's specifically tested fears, and corrupted the electoral process.
Anything that people cannot turn their eyes away from, simply to extend "engagement" time and rack up counts of adverts displayed. The ruthless pursuit of attention in the attention economy.
The only restraint is the limit of how grotesque the content can be before people turn away, and that boundary is apparently being continually pushed forward by exposure.
Of course, they justify it all on varoius grounds ranging from 'freedom of expression', 'let the viewers decide', 'we're not editors', etc., ad nauseum.
To be clear:
This is beyond malicious, this is knowingly (or at best intentionally ignorantly) poisoning society for their own profit.
Not that this is unusual; corporations have often poisoned the water, air, & land for their own profit. Except that this is at the scale & scope of modern technology.
If we don't want the tech industry to soon be seen in the same light as the old smokestack or cigarette industries, this needs to be curbed.