It’s the same with Neymar. How many times do you think his profile is reported for any number of violations by people who don’t like him? If an ordinary persons account got 100 reports a minute it would be taken down. Neymar’s won’t be.
I don’t know how every Integrity system could be modified to make an exception for any of these classes of accounts or how to codify it in a way that would seem “fair”. If you have an idea for a better way, you should share it.
Moreover, I assume this bug was reported internally, probably pretty quickly. How long did it take to get fixed? If the fix wasn’t prioritized and corrected within, say, a day (along with a regression test to ensure it never happens again!), then that would be pretty damning of the company’s culture and priorities as well.
Not sure what the correct analog for physical product is, but we accept everything up to and including catastrophic failure resulting in deaths from physical products under the right circumstances, so you're going to have to be much more specific.
It should be obvious why "Shut Facebook off" is not in the domain of potential solutions Facebook will entertain to this technical challenge.
There is not a trade principle of having to treat all customers equally (the sole exception being not denying service for a specific list of protected groups), and there is a general principle that people can trade with others as they please and provide different conditions for arbitrary reasons.
Popular users are going to have more false-positive reports than others, but when those reports deviate from the norm on individual pieces of content (say a nude photo) then the system should still be able to pick it up. It's an exercise in feature extraction.
The login blanket exception (for the CEO of the company) is a different use case and purpose than content control, one that blanket exceptions can solve efficiently.
I'm certain that the other poster won't present some kind of practical outline because part-way through the brainstorming they will realize they are designing a "Social Credit Score" and become too frustrated to continue.
Then the rules should be different, like Twitter giving a blue check mark. If there are accounts that need to be treated differently then it should be clear why and how the rules are different. Fixing problems with tech (like not allowing Zuckerberg to login) should be the exception.
Twitter caught hell for letting Trump break their rules because they pretended the rules were the same for everyone.
Currently if you register a Facebook account to manage a business and post ads, it will be banned off and on for weeks, and the recourse suggested to me by a director in the Integrity org was "try posting on facebook like a normal person."
More to the point, after a human reviewed Neymar's conduct and it clearly violated Facebook policies about posting revenge porn, his account still wasn't taken down. And that's not a technical issue of the false positive rate -- it is a double standard.
From the article: 'A December memo from another Facebook data scientist was blunter: “Facebook routinely makes exceptions for powerful actors.”'
(Edited: changed verb tense to make it clear that this already happened and wasn't a hypothetical.)
Why does this disparity exist? By your own account, the number of times this happens for normal users is significantly smaller than for high-profile users, so why is Facebook incapable of having sufficient staffing to deal with this case for all users? _This_ is what has a lot of people annoyed.
Why do you think this? I mean it isn't like there was a plebiscite on what "social media was supposed to help".
As with most things of consequence in our world, social media is more of an emergent phenomena that any sort of planned effort. We have a legislative system that is there to provide a mechanism to adapt our legal system as needed.
> the direct vote of all the members of an electorate on an important public question such as a change in the constitution.
> ROMAN HISTORY: a law enacted by the plebeians' assembly.
saved you a click
This is literally the first time I’ve heard anyone voice this expectation, and it is a ludicrous expectation to have had at any point in time.
That was the hypothesis. The worldwide experiment that is still running seems to have falsified it.
I heard people voice similar expectations about roughly equally ludicrous categories of online services then, but never social media as such. Most of them were ludicrous for reasons that were obvious at the time, and apply equally to social media:
(1) In the short term, the digital divide was acute, and any benefits they brought would naturally increase inequality across that divide.
(2) In the longer term, where one might presume the digital divide would erode, they overlooked that while the services involved were generally still in the venture-subsidized artificially underpriced/undermonetized phase, any plausible business model would either promote inequality by narrowing reach to an elite or promote inequality by creating sharply tiered service or (most commonly) a sharp division between a broad class of users being engaged to be marketed to moneyed interests and the moneyed interests buying their eyeballs. Any prediction of resolving inequality was based on venture subsidies and monopoly building dumping being converted into a permanent state out of charity.
> Most of them were ludicrous for reasons that were obvious at the time, and apply equally to social media:
It seems post facto to conclude that they were obviously ludicrous at the time. Perhaps with hindsight it seems as ludicrous as a belief in alchemy in the middle ages, but it wasn't obvious that you couldn't turn lead into gold before we had chemistry. In the Web 2.0 era lots of smart people thought social media could make the world better. I raised money and founded a "social media" startup expressly thinking it would empower people, and many of my peers in that world were equally earnest.
Supposed by whom? Zuckerberg created Facebook when he was at Harvard and had never seemed interested in leveling any playing field.
The internet, and social media in particular, changed all that. First only nerds could make a web pages. Some, like me, published our thoughts there using raw HTML. Then Moveable Type allowed anyone with an FTP site to publish. Then Blogger allowed anyone with a browser to publish. Then Flickr and Facebook and Twitter and all the rest. It was an exciting time.
I hope this help explains why we thought this would "level the playing field." What we read and what we watched was no longer dictated by TV Network bosses or editorial boards. Governments could no longer demonize people in other lands, because we were all free to (for example) be Facebook friends with those people. At least that was the theory. As I mentioned in another comment, it sure hasn't worked out that way.
When you compare the profits of newspapers and TV stations to FB, it becomes obvious why so many media mogul billionaires are pushing for harsh regulations for Social Media...
> As I mentioned in another comment, it sure hasn't worked out that way.
It was fun to dream.
You can see for yourself by searching for “2005 Facebook screenshots”.
—February 2004 Facebook user
I think it looks so much better than the current design.
High profile accounts cannot work under identical rules or they'd simply all be suspended all the time.