Re:Facebook Pledges $130M to Fund “Supreme Court” for Content
by zmzrr on Thursday December 12, 2019 @01:35PM
(#21774756)
How would breaking up FB into Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp help with this at all? They don't even share ad inventory. It looks like you're out to hurt the company and that's it.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Facebook Pledges $130M to Fund “Supreme Court” for Content
by JumpCrisscross on Thursday December 12, 2019 @02:05PM
(#21775092)
> How would breaking up FB into Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp help with this at all?
Moderation policy is an axis of competition. Letting each platform explore moderation systems (a) let’s us compare results, (b) reduces the damage a single company’s bad policies can inflict, (c) and gives users on both sides alternatives if they disagree.
Re:Facebook Pledges $130M to Fund “Supreme Court” for Content
by arkanciscan on Thursday December 12, 2019 @01:47PM
(#21774905)
It's called punishment, and it helps to discourage negative behavior.
Re:Facebook Pledges $130M to Fund “Supreme Court” for Content
by zmzrr on Thursday December 12, 2019 @01:50PM
(#21774940)
Ah, okay. I thought we were looking to solve a problem, instead we want to inflict vendetta because we don't like something.
Re:Facebook Pledges $130M to Fund “Supreme Court” for Content
by unearthed on Thursday December 12, 2019 @02:13PM
(#21775189)
> Assumes FB causes no harm because we've yet to articulate the problems it causes.
Look through my posts in this thread. FB causes shitstorms of damage not the least of which is aggregation / indoctrination of dissention through isolation.
FB is basically pushing monsters outside of its gates in hopes they "go away". They wont. lol.
Also there are legal practices call "punitive damages" so yes there exists legal statutes for punishing things that we determine we dont like.