The good news for Facebook: Haugen, and the team supporting her, aren't aiming to shut down or break up the company. During her Senate testimony, Haugen repeatedly told lawmakers that she was there because she believes in Facebook's potential for good,
but... i don't!
shut it down now!
nationalise it in the Global South, where their "Free" Basics is the defacto internet.
"40,000 people working on the safety and security on our platform, including 15,000 people who review content in more than 70 languages working in more than 20 locations all across the world to support our community."
what a joke.
what kinda ratio is that, when you have between 1-3 billion users?
@dredmorbius @FediFollows @rune @meena also, Erika Mann, German MEP that then run Facebook's Brussels office:
Perhaps we should document this all somehow.
@doctormo @meena @rysiek the fediverse still had a ways to go in this. I need to maintain a separate account as the admin at mastodon.technology has decided that my primary instance is bad so people there don't even see my follow requests, even though they want to interact with me. That takes a lot of agency away from the users and creates massive roadblocks to adoption.
This says Facebook claims that 3.51 billion users use at least one of it's products.
Back of the book, town has 2 moderators for 300 users or roughly moderator per dunbar. Seems fair.
So if Facebook had the same ratio of moderators as town, it would need to keep 23 million moderators on staff.
@meena @rysiek Outlaw any social media site with >1M users. Force interop/federation if people want larger networks. The same way people are locked into facebook "because everyone is on there" this can lock smaller sites into maintaining interop.
Think of the old times when webmail became a thing: who the fuck would use a new email service that didn't send messages to other servers/domains?
@unlofl @meena @rysiek #Facebook
I think one problem is there's no good definition of "social media site". #Section230 refers to "interactive computer service"—that's it. It's never been clear what the limits are.
In '96, intent was really to protect ISPs, webhosts, and AOL-type services with chat/news/boards.
Today, I think drawing a red line when a provider actively promotes certain content for its own benefit (e.g. FB, #YouTube) is a start, as a clear standard.
@kadin @unlofl @meena @rysiek "Actively promotes certain content for its own benefit" isn't that clear, though. A mastodon instance that actively moderates users/federated instances is technically promoting certain content for its benefit. You could argue that's for the users' benefit, but so could FB or Alphabet/YouTube.
Stricter regs on data hoarding to make FB/Google scale unreasonable seems like a better option.
@kadin @unlofl @meena @rysiek And to that point there needs to be a better experience or at least marketing around managed hosting for [interopable] social media/video hosting/streaming/etc with specialized search engines to replace the centralized mess that exists today. Otherwise we'll just get expensive centralized services that everyone complains about and pines for the days when they gave up personal data for services.
@kadin User-generated (or submitted) content is a huge element.
There's something of an increasing scale of concern with text, images, audio, video, data, and code / executables, as well.
Algorthmic promotion is another huge element.
What FB and the like bring to bear is both social graph and developing behavioural profiles based on both on-site interactions and off-site activity (online, and increasingly, offline / real-space, including location and commerce data).
A place for trans makers, coders, tinkerers and dreamers.