The fact that this will kill Facebook is irrelevant. The fact that decentralization is observably very difficult is irrelevant. The hardness of a task does not affect its necessity. There is no solution for Facebook that leaves Facebook recognizably like it is now. It's arguably a fluke of politics and culture that got Facebook to where it is now.
(When I say "decentralize", I don't necessarily mean full on Diaspora-style decentralization. Decentralizing into multiple social networks that are still architecturally centralized is viable, though those social networks will face the same pressures at scale.)
>What would this look like in concrete steps? Taking social responsibility. I dont know the steps because I dont run that business only affected by it.
>How do you manage bullying? >Knowingly spreading misinformation and disinformation? >What prevents Facebook from becoming one big flamewar? FB should be deciding on these. They can if they want to.
>How do you decide how to confront contradictions? By letting people talk instead of hiding them from each other.
>It's another thing all together to put in place the features that make this possible. Yeah of course and its big time they accepted they should.
What steps would you take if you had all the resources at Facebook's disposal and it was your responsibility. Yes, I know it's not really your responsibility but it's all hypothetical.
The police will undoubtedly come and arrest a few of them for what they say, but that's not your problem. Let the legal system handle the issues.
The only thing making this a problem is Facebook's insistence on curating what you see so they can show you ads. They made this problem themselves and could solve it in an instant by stopping the interference.
Yes, Facebook is going to be managing/filtering/curating/policing the site to some extent and yes, they want to show ads, as that's how they make money, not only to make a profit, but to run the site where this activity is happening. And some of the site management is about maintaining some level of decency or decorum, which will likely be inviting to more users, which indirectly leads to more ad impressions. It's not all directly about ad funneling and manipulation. Facebook the company is made up of people, and assuming that everything they're doing is purely to maximize profit at the cost of all else. To make such an assumption would be similar to me assuming everything you're posting has some ulterior motive, something beyond having a civil constructive discussion. I don't think that's a fair assumption to make. Is it?
Perhaps you're arguing that Facebook shouldn't exist? If that's the case, just say so.
Right up until they're spending more time and money on policing that they're benefitting from increased revenue.
> And some of the site management is about maintaining some level of decency or decorum
Yes, in a world where they link everything to everyone's feed, that need that.
But if they didn't do that, instead only linking when specifically mentioned, they wouldn't need to censor anything because you'd just unfollow people who link annoying things.
> Facebook the company is made up of people, and assuming that everything they're doing is purely to maximize profit at the cost of all else.
Right, they have lunch hours, etc. But how do you suppose their work is evaluated if they don't have concrete goals such as 'increase readership', etc?
You think they're all paid just to fiddle with stuff for their own individual desires?
> To make such an assumption would be similar to me assuming everything you're posting has some ulterior motive, something beyond having a civil constructive discussion. I don't think that's a fair assumption to make. Is it?
I'm not a for-profit company. If I was I think it'd be a fair assumption.
> Perhaps you're arguing that Facebook shouldn't exist? If that's the case, just say so.
Nope. I'm arguing that they're making their own problems and could stop if they wanted to. I don't feel like making excuses for them.
Also, let the police/etc read it, so that if you incite violence someone shows up at your door exactly as if you sent a postal threat-letter.
They already give people the tools to cope with this. You choose who to follow and who to block.
Is this what you think Facebook should be? Or what you think is a more accurate description of what Facebook is?
What would this look like in concrete steps? How do you manage bullying? Knowingly spreading misinformation and disinformation? What prevents Facebook from becoming one big flamewar? How do you decide how to confront contradictions? What about people who don't want to use Facebook for debate?
It's all well and good to make statements like The tradeoff they should be allowing is to allow people to see/confront contradictions. Else its not a debate. Nobody gains knowledge or new thoughts. No one progresses apart from Facebook. It's another thing all together to put in place the features that make this possible. I challenge you to put forth some concrete features that would address the concerns you have.