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.