We of course don't know enough of the specifics, because Facebook works hard to keep it that way. But we do know that Facebook has a body count. If you're looking for a "valuable entry point for discussion", maybe start with Facebook's well-documented harms.
Seeing devs non-ironically complain about internal departments like this one which was set up in order not to let that happen again kind of saddens me a lot. No, productivity and work is not more important than making sure that that work doesn’t enable a genocide campaign in a specific corner of the world.
In the context of ensuring a bank doesn't transfer money to terrorists, this is completely wrong. Banks have a whole list of operations and processes, and failing this is enforced by actual jail time. This is why "know your customer" exists in banking. In the context of terrorism, there is no police enforcement regarding terrorists; often, we are talking military enforcement.
This is also incorrect. Transferring money to a terrorist organization is a crime because countries have declared it illegal. Of course well-funded terrorists have victims and enablement of well-funded terrorism has clear victims.
And yes, the government is using military and diplomatic channels to fight terrorism directly-- by ensuring the resources they have access to are limited.
One is that you think a lot of things just shouldn't be enforced, and that we should allow a lot more harm than we do now. Genocide?
The other is that you think we should have a lot more police to take over the harm-reducing regulatory actions now in place. That we should take the tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of social media moderators now working, but make them government employees and give them guns.
I can't decide which is more cartoonishly evil.
Social media moderators exist to protect the public image of the platform, and enforce community guidelines. They should not be burdened with law enforcement simply because we can't be arsed to do proper police work.
Facebook is not like a screwdriver, a simple, neutral tool that is occasionally used to harm. Facebook is an incredibly complex tool for connecting humans, a tool with all sorts of biases that shape the nature and velocity of social interaction.
People have known for decades that online communication systems enable harm. This was a well-understood fact long before Facebook existed. Facebook is morally responsible for that harm (as are the perps, etc, etc). Something they understand perfectly well because they do a lot to mitigate that harm while crowing about how socially responsible they are being.
You might disagree with most ethicists on this, as well as with Facebook itself. But you'll have an uphill struggle. Even the example you pick, vehicles, doesn't work, because car manufacturers have spent decades working to mitigate opportunities for the tools they create to cause harm. Now that cars are getting smarter, that harm reduction will include preventing drivers from running the cars into people.
The only way to objectively agree about responsibility is to use an actor/agent model, where actors are entirely responsible for their actions, and only actions which directly harm others are considered. Otherwise we're discussing which butterflies are responsible for which hurricanes. I'm happy to be wrong here, but I just don't see an alternative framework that can realistically, objectively, draw actionable boundaries around responsibility for action. This by the way is the model that is used in common law.
Facebook being a complex tool strengthens my point. Should providers of complex tools be responsible for every possible use of them? Is it not possible to provide a complex tool "as is" without warranty? Wouldn't constraining tool makers in this way be fundamentally harmful?
> online communication systems enable harm... Facebook is morally responsible for that harm
Everything can be seen to "enable harm". Facebook being morally responsible is not a statement of fact, it's an opinion. Facebook's actions to mitigate are a) to evade/delay regulatory action, b) to maintain their public image or c) by a small group of activist employees. Only a) and b) align with their fiduciary duty to shareholders.
That's incorrect. I'd suggest you start with Dekker's "Field Guide to 'Human Error", which looks at airplane safety. Airplanes are only as safe as they are because many different people and groups see themselves as responsible. Your supposedly "objective" model, if followed, would drastically increase deaths.
The reason airplanes are safe is because the government is doing its job to regulate the space.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incident...
I'm not saying the NTSB isn't important. But it's far from the only reason that we have fewer crashes. Government regulation can be helpful in improving standards, but they set a minimum bar. Aviation's high levels of current safety are a collaboration between many, many people. Starting with individual pilots, engineers, and maintenance techs, going up through collaborative relationships, through companies and civil society organizations, and up through national and international regulatory agencies. All of these people are taking responsibility for safety.
If so, how do you explain the catastrophic failures in construction, food safety, and banking prior to the top-down government oversight of those industries?
They serve two different purposes. The former comes out of a zero-sum, adversarial setting where the goal is to figure out who pays for a past harm. The latter comes from a positive-sum collaborative setting where everybody is trying to improve future outcomes.
If I release a new product tomorrow, I'm responsible for what happens. As are the people who use it. But if somebody dies, then liability may be allocated only to one of us or to both in some proportion.
Again, read Dekker.
"morally responsible" ~= "guilty"
But you are still imho (morally) responsible for the deaths occurring out of the use of your product (this is where we would probably disagree). Even if you were not legally guilty.
I like another example that to me clarified the distinction between these concepts better.
Imagine one morning, you open your front door and find a baby having been placed there somewhen during the night. The child is still alive. You are not guilty in any way for the baby's fate, but now that you have seen it you are responsible for ensuring that it gets help. You would be guilty if you would allow it to freeze to death or similar.
This significantly varies by jurisdiction, and isn't settled at all. I don't think being present makes you responsible either. Unappealing as it may seem, you should indeed be able to pull up a chair, have some popcorn, and watch the baby freeze. People should only bear obligations they explicitly consented to. I don't think anyone has the moral authority to impose such an involuntary obligation on anyone else.
Modelling society as a constrained adversarial relationship between fundamentally opposed and competing groups is more accurate than assuming there is "one team" that knows a fundamental "good" or "right" and that the rest of us just need to "see it". People who perform honour killing or preside over slavery are just as sure of their moral superiority as you are. What we need is a world where we can coexist peacefully, not one where we are all united under one religion of moral correctness.
But they wanted to be valued higher, so they explicitly chose to instead step into the editor's role and became responsible for the content on the platform.
What makes you think this possible? I don't see where Facebook is particularly responsible here. Telephones and radios have been used to coordinate assassinations and genocides. Movies have been used to justify invasions. Why isn't anyone burning the effigies of Alexander Graham Bell, Guglielmo Marconi, and Thomas Edison?
In any case, perfection is rarely possible but often an excellent goal to aim for. For example, consider child car fatalities. We might not immediately get it to zero, but that is no reason to say, "Fuck it, they can always have more kids."