<story><title>The Facebook Papers: dozens of stories based on whistleblower docs dropped</title><url>https://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-papers-mark-zuckerberg-frances-haugen-leaked-docs-2021-10</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>rrrrrrrrrrrryan</author><text>&amp;gt; new legislation that only allows section 230 protection if platforms implement a ton of moderation&lt;p&gt;The proposals I&amp;#x27;ve seen also tie it to algorithmic content curation. The idea is that if a human is choosing what to put in front of my face (e.g. a newspaper editor), or an algorithm designed by a human (e.g. Facebook), then they should bear some responsibility for that content. If the New York Times publishes something illegal, they can be sued. If someone on Facebook posts something illegal, and Facebook chooses to amplify that content (via algorithm or otherwise), and Facebook hasn&amp;#x27;t made a good faith effort to moderate it, Facebook should probably be able to be sued as well.&lt;p&gt;Presumably, chronologically ordered content would be exempt from these new moderation guidelines, which gives the smaller platforms some space to play in. Personally, I&amp;#x27;d love if our social media brought back dumb sorting and filtering: algorithmic recommendations are a new hell.</text></item><item><author>hbn</author><text>I can&amp;#x27;t help but think this &amp;quot;whistleblowing&amp;quot; is only good for Facebook&amp;#x27;s bottom line. I haven&amp;#x27;t seen anything pop up that&amp;#x27;s shocking or needed an internal person to be leaking it -- &amp;quot;it&amp;#x27;s bad for kids,&amp;quot; &amp;quot;they don&amp;#x27;t censor enough hate speech,&amp;quot; etc.&lt;p&gt;It just seems to me that it&amp;#x27;s setting up for a bunch of new legislation that only allows section 230 protection if platforms implement a ton of moderation that only the existing, big player platforms could possibly keep up with, ensuring that smaller platforms (or ones that don&amp;#x27;t want to censor as much) could never hope to exist. Facebook gets to censor more, keeping controversial stuff off their site, and they don&amp;#x27;t even take the blame because &amp;quot;it&amp;#x27;s the law,&amp;quot; PLUS all potential competition is gone. Sounds great for Zuck!</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>Steltek</author><text>Define &amp;quot;algorithmic curation&amp;quot;. It could mean any of:&lt;p&gt;- Chronological order&lt;p&gt;- Round-robin per subscription&amp;#x2F;friend (per sibling comment here)&lt;p&gt;- Upvote&amp;#x2F;downvote and vote weighting&lt;p&gt;- Brigading, sock puppets, etc&lt;p&gt;- Inlined advertisements - you may not like adtech but legality is a separate issue of debate&lt;p&gt;- Locality, proximity&lt;p&gt;- Content as it relates to time of day&lt;p&gt;Only some of these contribute to echo chambers and manipulation. I think it would be difficult to write a straight forward description that does what you would want and extremely difficult for doing what most people would want.</text></comment>
<story><title>The Facebook Papers: dozens of stories based on whistleblower docs dropped</title><url>https://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-papers-mark-zuckerberg-frances-haugen-leaked-docs-2021-10</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>rrrrrrrrrrrryan</author><text>&amp;gt; new legislation that only allows section 230 protection if platforms implement a ton of moderation&lt;p&gt;The proposals I&amp;#x27;ve seen also tie it to algorithmic content curation. The idea is that if a human is choosing what to put in front of my face (e.g. a newspaper editor), or an algorithm designed by a human (e.g. Facebook), then they should bear some responsibility for that content. If the New York Times publishes something illegal, they can be sued. If someone on Facebook posts something illegal, and Facebook chooses to amplify that content (via algorithm or otherwise), and Facebook hasn&amp;#x27;t made a good faith effort to moderate it, Facebook should probably be able to be sued as well.&lt;p&gt;Presumably, chronologically ordered content would be exempt from these new moderation guidelines, which gives the smaller platforms some space to play in. Personally, I&amp;#x27;d love if our social media brought back dumb sorting and filtering: algorithmic recommendations are a new hell.</text></item><item><author>hbn</author><text>I can&amp;#x27;t help but think this &amp;quot;whistleblowing&amp;quot; is only good for Facebook&amp;#x27;s bottom line. I haven&amp;#x27;t seen anything pop up that&amp;#x27;s shocking or needed an internal person to be leaking it -- &amp;quot;it&amp;#x27;s bad for kids,&amp;quot; &amp;quot;they don&amp;#x27;t censor enough hate speech,&amp;quot; etc.&lt;p&gt;It just seems to me that it&amp;#x27;s setting up for a bunch of new legislation that only allows section 230 protection if platforms implement a ton of moderation that only the existing, big player platforms could possibly keep up with, ensuring that smaller platforms (or ones that don&amp;#x27;t want to censor as much) could never hope to exist. Facebook gets to censor more, keeping controversial stuff off their site, and they don&amp;#x27;t even take the blame because &amp;quot;it&amp;#x27;s the law,&amp;quot; PLUS all potential competition is gone. Sounds great for Zuck!</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>BeFlatXIII</author><text>How will platforms based on chronological ordering handle accounts that post wildly different amounts of stuff?  If I log in for the first time in three weeks, I want to see the post from someone who last logged on two weeks ago more than the spam of the daily users.</text></comment>