> Any online open forum would have the same problems no matter how hard they tried to prevent it.

Facebook tries to get by with as few moderators as they can, with paying them as low as possible and generally trying to teflon away anything negative from their service (i.e. they negate being responsible for the fake news/hate speech on their platform).

I believe that there would certainly be a way to provide fair moderation - for example a ratio of 1 full time CSR (customer services representative) per 1000 users, not the 1 per 20k or worse they are currently trying to do.

>for example a ratio of 1 full time CSR (customer services representative) per 1000 users, not the 1 per 20k or worse they are currently trying to do

Hey, that's the Mastodon model! Relatively small independent servers with own admin/moderator teams responsible only for their own servers. That's scalable moderation.

Aren't those more like a maintenance team? While they are moderators, keep the server running and use it themselves, they don't specifically responsible for the posts on their server.

Mastodon has moderation tools[1] that allow administrators of a server to restrict not just users on their own server, but also how other users in the Fediverse can interact with their users. Users can also report content.

[1]: https://github.com/tootsuite/documentation/blob/7f81350fe4fe...

> a ratio of 1 full time CSR (customer services representative) per 1000 users

That would require 2 million full-time CSRs, because Facebook has a little over 2 billion active users per month.

If that is the price to avoid externalizing the cost of a lack of moderation to society, then it is 2 million CSRs.

I'm sick and tired of Silicon Valley companies thinking they can save money on customer support and have societies pick up the tab.

And it's not like Facebook (or Twitter) couldn't get the money: 3€ per user and month should be enough to cover the cost of a properly salaried CSR - and at the same time create a barrier for bots and Nazi trolls.

> And it's not like Facebook (or Twitter) couldn't get the money

What makes you say that ? Facebook barely makes $5/quarter (3 months) in revenue. They couldn't even afford $1/month/user. Meanwhile Twitter has never turned a profit ever.

If you can't make more than $5 per quarter per user, maybe you shouldn't be in business. If you have never, ever turned a profit, then what are you, a charity?

Nope, you’re a venture backed startup!

That would make them the world's second largest private employer after Walmart. It's an absurd number of people to hire for content moderation. And it likely wouldn't solve any of the world's problems.

We could always make it law and prohibit Facebook’s continued existence.

Similar to how GDPR is going to gut the business model of firms who suck up all personal data and sell to the highest bidder.

> I'm sick and tired of Silicon Valley companies thinking they can save money on customer support and have societies pick up the tab.

Unless they're obliged to by law, they never will. These companies minimize customer support in order to improve the bottom line, and will keep these at a minimal level - just barely enough to get away with that. It's one of the elements of the so-called "disruption".

If you're tired of "picking up the tab" you should leave facebook and encourage others to do the same. What ever happened to the idea that people who say stupid things expose themselves.. it's kind of a favor

At a cost of $20,000 per CSR that is $40 billion a year, which is more than the revenue of Facebook.

If Facebook can't moderate properly because it is too expensive, then Facebook can't exist. We can go back to a more plural world of many specialist forums with community moderation. That way the content properly reflects the society that generates it.

Then leave Facebook and encourage others to do the same, rather than forcing your views on them.

Forcing my views? What if they were spreading porn to children, should society force it's views on them then? What if they were subverting elections? 'Forcing your views' is kind of how society works. Facebook is not a harmless forum where friends can adopt banter at the level they feel comfortable with. Facebook put things in your timeline that are unsolicited because they are a publisher and should follow the same laws as other publishers.

How is it different from companies building products that pollute the earth, and not cleaning it up? Food companies not worried about the impact of huge life stock, or burning down forest for agriculture, or car companies not worried about air pollution created by their cars?

Externalizing the cost of society's speech to society?

How dare they?!

In a liberal society speech should be free in every way.

If Facebook can't work economically in a way that's also somewhat responsible socially, maybe it shouldn't have 2 billion active users per month. Maybe it shouldn't survive. Maybe I should finally quit it.

>Maybe I should finally quit it.

I did. You should, it will improve your peace of mind. Also Facebook is a culture swallowing monster.

I seem to recall in SVs earlier days, when tech started putting old business models out to pasture, the following phrase was thrown about quite a bit:

> No one owes you a business model

I don’t reslly care if FB doesn’t work at scale, if we put minimum responsibilities on them. They’re not owed that business model.

Well then I guess they took a bite larger than they could swallow, right?

It's pretty understandable they're not able to moderate over 2 billion active users per month.

So that leaves two options: Either not have 2 billion active users, or not have any moderation. The latter is plainly unacceptable because, like others pointed out, it simply externalises the cost onto society. The first option, well I'm sure people will find other ways to communicate and plan events; It's not like their service is so unique, just the network effect and the size (which is way too big any way). We were long overdue for something better to come along any way.

There's no fundamental "right" Facebook has to do this, to keep existing and growing in the way they do, if all they want to do is grow but not take responsibility with the consequences of their size. Edit someone else said it better: No one owes you a business model. If a crucial bit appears impossible to "scale", then well tough luck I guess.

> they negate being responsible for the fake news/hate speech on their platform

Are they, though? I feel that they are no more responsible than internet providers are for the illegal shit people do with their connections.

I'm absolutely gobsmacked that people are starting from the position that hate speech should be censored at all. The determination of what constitutes 'hate speech' is made by whoever happens to be in power at the time. Winston Churchill would have given a much different answer than Adolf Hitler. From my point of view, it's chilling that the mechanism to do this has been built in the first place.

This is a common approach by groups who perpetuate hate speech- to exclaim with faux outrage that any limits on hate speech are tantamount to the dissolution of free speech at the behest of ostensibly powerful minority groups. I won't go so far as to accuse you of being a member of hate groups, but your response certainly echoes the propaganda that they spread, especially in forums like HN.

The fact is that society has always drawn lines about what speech and behavior is and isn't acceptable in different venues and circumstances. Facebook's choice to censor hate speech is no different from a bar, restaurant, or department store asking someone to leave for shouting the N-word at fellow shoppers. It's a private non-governmental entity making a choice about how they want their users to act on their platform.

Furthermore, free speech claims in favor of hate speech ignore the real material costs in human lives that facilitating hate speech incurs. While I greatly value free speech personally, I also greatly value human lives and the ability of all people to meaningfully participate in society without facing systemic oppression, violence, and hatred.

Tolerance must inevitably come face-to-face with intolerance, and if we don't act to stop the worst kinds of hatred and intolerance they fester and decay the ideals that allow tolerance to flourish at all.

Suggesting that free speech advocacy, which has a very long tradition that predates contemporary social divisions, "echoes" the "propaganda" of "hate groups" is simultaneously meaningless and pernicious. You're drawing a line between free speech and "hate groups" while in the same breath denying that you're even doing so. In the process, you're not only inventing a nefarious association where none exists --- because causality flows forward through time, not backward --- but also completely ignoring danjayh's central point, which is that the definition of "hate" depends on the objectives of those with the power to define the word, and that machinery to suppress "hate speech" becomes, ultimately, a vehicle for reinforcing existing power structures and delaying needed change.

> Furthermore, free speech claims in favor of hate speech ignore the real material costs in human lives that facilitating hate speech incurs.

What material cost? Censorship advocates continually assume that hate speech must have large and personal costs, but in my experience, present no evidence. The benefits of censorship are not apparent. The costs, however, are clear in the historical record: slowed scientific progress, emotional distress, and atrocities that might have been avoided through vigorous public discussion. And it's always been in the name of the public good, or saving souls, or protecting the innocent, or some other unassailable and noble good that people with power have forced others not to say certain words. The idea that no, this time, it's different suggests a certain historical hubris.

I'd wager that throughout history, there's never been a society that's made its people happier or better-off through censorship. I'd love to see a counterexample if you can find one.

You have a number of points I agree with, but I find other points troublesome.

For instance, the costs of censorship are, interestingly enough, also the costs of not censoring free speech. Slowed scientific progress (due to the rise of anti-intellectualism), emotional distress (pretty obvious how some types of free speech cause this), and atrocities (e.g. Charlotesville) could have been avoided through censorship. Those are the material costs of allowing unbridled, "hate group" free speech.

On a side note, I am very personally conflicted on this topic. It was strange to read your comment and strongly agree with some statements and then very strongly disagree other statements.

I'm not even sure there's a real objective definition of "hate speech" - there's certainly speech you hate. And speech I hate. But its all rather subjective. Best we can say is that some speech grossly offends a shared, widespread, moral consensus, and so seems hateful from that perspective. But... lots of genuinely progressive speech is also this way.

Free speech policies that would effectively harbor hate speech - also protect your speech from being labelled as such, and then censored, or worse. There are a disturbing number of places still left in this world, where controversial speech can get you jailed, or killed - with the blessing of, or by a government.

Humans can't be trusted, by and large, to be benevolent censors.

> I'm not even sure there's a real objective definition of "hate speech"

Speech promoting violence against some group of people, and not for defense purposes. No subjectivity there.

So "punch a Nazi" should be censored, right?

The argument is that since the Nazi will inevitably punch you, preemptively punching the Nazi is inherently defensive, and thus urging people to punch Nazis is not hate speech.

Of course, you may very well ask, isn't it trivial to construct an almost identical argument to justify violence against almost any particular category of people you'd care to name? Hopefully your interlocutor won't respond by punching you in the face.

Absolutely. There is no excuse for violence except defense. The other comment talks about "proactive defense", but that too seems dubious.

Yes? Righteous hate is still hate, even if enjoyable.

You’re drawing a false equivalency. Social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter are more like a public squares rather than restaurants or stores. It’s a space where free speech should be defended. Because free speech protects our society from authoritarianism and violence. It’s authoritarians who want to limit free speech, because their ideas have no merit and can only be enforced by violence.

> Social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter are more like a public squares rather than restaurants or stores.

Are they? Let's see the most important difference:

Is a public square privately owned? No. It is owned by the community, usually the council.

Is a restaurant privately owned? Yes. The proprietor has the option to evict people at will, as long as they do not discriminate against minorities in the process.

Do hate speech laws apply in a public place? Yes. If someone states racist things in public, they may be put in prison for hate speech.

Do hate speech laws apply in a private place? It depends on if this space is open to the public, and on the event being held. Generally, yes.

Is the owner allowed to evict any member at will from a public square? It depends. If the person is being harmful towards others, they may be removed from the square and detained, and sometimes even charged a crime.

Is the owner allowed to evict any member at will from a private square? Yes, as long as they do not discriminate against minorities when doing so.

As you can see, the attribute you have brought up does not matter. Facebook has the legal right to remove people for speech, as long as it does not discriminate against minorities in the process.

> Is a public square privately owned? No. It is owned by the community, usually the council.

Many public squares are privately owned these days.

> Facebook has the legal right to remove people for speech

No-one is disputing that. Grandparent wrote "It’s a space where free speech should be defended," not "It's a space where free speech is protected by the law." The lack of legal protection for speech in this kind of space makes it all the more important that individuals stand up for it.

> It’s authoritarians who want to limit free speech, because their ideas have no merit and can only be enforced by violence.

Let's not be disingenuous: democracies also want to limit the speech of authoritarians. And they probably should, because every idea that's broadcast will garner some following. It's human nature. Your knife doesn't only cut one way.

Good people want to limit the speech of bad people in principle, sure, just as good people would endorse violence if there were a way to ensure it were directed only against bad people. But no-one can fairly judge that, so limiting speech is a bad idea in the same way that permitting violence is a bad idea. The marketplace of ideas works slowly, but it does work: it does, ultimately, find the truth; good ideas succeed while bad ideas die out. Whereas the "marketplace" of violence can't tell whether an idea is good or bad, and while the violent people might be on the side of good for now, there's no reliable way to keep it that way.

There's not a lot of value talking about free speech on HN because it itself is subject to even stricter censorship of unpopular ideas. It's really a bubble of agreement and almost-agreement.

I don't get the arguement that Facebook, (previously a way to stay in touch with friends) should have to broadcast every crank who wants to talk. If you want to be in a newspaper or radio you have to hit a certain quality level, and be the right kind of content. This editorship is not a restriction of speech, I can start my own website, print my own newsletter etc.

This is probably too reductive, but ultimately it's profitable to do so. Facebook is not in the news business, they're in the data/advertising business.

Whether hate speech should be censored is also decided by whoever is in power at the time. The Adolf Hitler regime isn't going to be prevented from rounding up dissidents just because Weimarbook decided to be supportive of nazis.

Yes. People seem to be fixated on the perceived evils of the day and forget about how all of history is full of competing political groups and ideas, most of them promoting or using violence to gain power. If it was obvious how to pick goodies and baddies, hardly anyone would join the baddies.

> Any online open forum would have the same problems no matter how hard they tried to prevent it.

Then don't make it open. Make it auditable and tied to your public identity, not to an email address you can invent at any time. The OP is right, FB is making huge profits by punting the costs onto society.

Do you want to forcibly prevent others from engaging in anonymous discussion? Have you given any thought to the implications of that?

Is that provably inevitable for all online forms, or is “nobody knows how to yet”?

Governments act like all tech problems are the latter, but I would like to know if this is like encryption that only friends can break (never), or like self driving cars (most people call it impossible until five years after it’s been demonstrated).

For me moderating what amounts to open communication platform falls into third category: it is impossible and you should not try to do that.

Especially in FB's case where it is quite obvious that various opposing "hate groups" have learned how to game the system, and also how to present results of that such that it supports their rhetoric.

> it is impossible and you should not try to do that.

No, it is merely extremely expensive. But that's something that you need to tackle head on when your business model is to provide a service for free to a large chunk of the planet's population. The 'free' bit doesn't absolve you from your responsibility as an operator.

Seems like their recent move to get news off the feeds and focus on family and friends should solve the content issue. If someone is posting or liking hate speech or offensive content, I can just block them. I wouldn't add someone as a Facebook friend that would do that kind of thing anyway.

> it is impossible and you should not try to do that.

Can you prove, or at least demonstrate strong evidence for, either of those two claims? “FB are noobs at propaganda” isn’t sufficient, IMO.

The former, because words are subjective, therefore this is no way to get everything anyone anywhere would ever consider hate speech. It's just an impossible scenario.

FIDO.NET was a fairly polite society. There’s a lot to learn from then if there is will.

There's only one way I've seen in which one can reliably make and maintain a polite community: build it around a niche topic and moderate away things that stray too far away from it. The moment you let your community be about anything and everything is the moment the "unwashed masses" come and the whole thing starts catering to the lowest common denominator, which is a pretty shitty level.

It's not a complete recipe, but I feel it's a necessary condition. This is a big part of why HN is a polite place, or why most niche subreddits are polite places.

Your forum could still be "about anything", yet not cater to lowest common denominator.

It's only when you deliberately want to attract (and retain) as many eyeballs as possible, then the quality necessarily has to go out the window.

It works just fine with medium to large online forums, given they have a good and motivated moderator team. Just not for global online forums like FB.