Laws hold the porn industry accountable for dangerous content

The inability to post content without it being moderated beforehand is treated as if it's a good thing, suggesting it's something social media companies should do but distancing themselves from the implication enough to maintain plausible deniability.

Especially ironic is that many porn sites make much of their money through ads that harvest personal data or prey on male insecurity.

There are strong arguments I disagree with in favor of regulating social media. Those arguments are also prescriptive, not general "we should do something". This is a very weak one.

Downvotes are the single best indicator of the problem with volunteer content moderation. People don't just downvote for bad comments, they downvote for comments they disagree with. Good luck getting edgy content through YouTube's Volunteer Force, it'll hurt causes you may agree with.

...or in exchange to see the stuff they can't get to see anywhere else? I wonder for how many of these "volunteers" this is the main motivation - is this a quasi-legal way to see illegal content?

Facebook revolves around user interaction, that is videos, photos and text (in various forms, even links to external sources). Adult entertainment deals with those too, but those sites are mostly used like YouTube with lower session times.

Every minute "510,000 comments are posted, 293,000 statuses are updated, and 136,000 photos are uploaded"[0] on facebook, on Pornhub it is 22 video comments and 122 messages[1]. Xhamster should be comparable to that. The difference in volume is striking.

Now with lower volume it is easier to moderate. Scanning videos isn't easy but AI should help, but AI these days fails for text, at least for anything else than an easy classification task. Hate speech isn't just random insults, there is more to it, and current AI systems can't possibly understand the whole context to something.

Even if content wasn't released immediately on facebook, there aren't enough people in the world to moderate the amount of content posted on facebook everyday.

I really think the comparison of those sites doesn't make sense.

[0]: https://zephoria.com/top-15-valuable-facebook-statistics/

[1]: https://www.forbes.com/sites/curtissilver/2018/12/11/pornhub...

[1] https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/766b96c0-fdb0-11e9-8343-7...

Quite unlike Facebook - there is a Russian company that makes and sells fake Facebook accounts, and being used correctly, they can live for months and even years without being banned (used to buy ads advertising dodgy stuff). Facebook is really helpless to stop it.

It sounds like a pretext for end-to-end encryption regulation.

1. They don't have to worry about latency due to review delays.

2. They can use vision based detection algos for classification which are much reliable than NLP based understanding.

3. They recruit users to do reviews for in-site benefits.

Unsaid but I suspect they also don't have to worry about user driven random virality for any content.

They don't have need for "cost centers" such as customer support, moderation teams, etc. Facebook doesn't even have a large enough support team for advertisers let alone anyone else that might have some real issues with their accounts, which I think should probably be illegal. You can't offer a service and then not respond to your customers issues/problems, especially if they pay for it.

There definitely needs to be more regulation in tech regarding this aspect. These companies have all the money they need to solve some of these issues, and then some. They'd rather keep that money for themselves and try to enter completely different markets so they can become an even bigger monopoly instead, though (which is yet another good reason to put restrictions on this stuff, because the goal should be to minimize the number of monopolies).

Is it really just some old people there now and a bunch of influenza seeking self confirmation through meaningless likes and then the majority which is left is perhaps some bots and political activits to spam those few old people with shit that nobody outside their bubble gives a damn? This is a serious question, what's happening on Facebook nowadays that still keeps that domain alive?

> If a porn site were the subject of an investigation that revealed it had been home to millions of images of child abuse content, its parent company probably wouldn’t remain in business for much longer. For Facebook, however, a Times piece that alleged an epidemic of child abuse on its platform was just a bad news day. That’s a stark difference in reaction to the same offense, and one that should give us all pause.

So true. How is Facebook not being penalised really badly for this? Facebook distributing child absue through their unmoderated platform is the same as if Facebook would have build a bunch of robots who would have handed out child abuse magazines to millions of households. It is literally the same - a machine, which allegedely can't see - publicising horrendous content to millions of people. In the latter case Zuck would be locked into a prision cell on Guantanamo Bay for the rest of his life, in the former he just shruggs it off like nothing and keeps being one of the richest people on earth because of it. Quite stark contrast.