I don’t mean to be pedantic, but why do you need to state that. It’s not the users jobs to report the videos. They aren’t getting paid.
I might be reading this too much but somehow this sentence stands out as a sore thumb for me.
Edit: to add it's basically "cover your ass" , because a third party would implicitly assume watchers of despicable content would report it, and then it would look like Facebook failed to act
Facebook doesn't seem to be able to win here
I own a store that has power tools that could hurt people. As a business owner, it's my responsibility to keep my property secure, and to ensure people on my property don't use my tools to hurt themselves or others.
I install security cameras and I hire guards. I closely supervise customers when they use my power tools.
If I didn't do these things and someone used my tools to hurt people, I would be liable. If I thought a crime had been committed, I would call the police.
But it's not the responsibility of the police to patrol my store. The police aren't responsible to supervise my customers on my property while they use my tools.
That's my responsibility.
If someone uses my power tools in my store to hurt someone, I don't say "pat me on the back, I cut the power to the tools within minutes of the police notifying me".
If I did that, I'd be guilty of gross negligence and reckless disregard for human life, because I could reasonably anticipate my tools could be used this way and I did nothing to stop it.
In many jurisdictions that's a criminal charge sometimes known as involuntary manslaughter.
I think you are unable to separate your dislike of facebook from logic. Let's not pretend that facebook was the cause of hurt, and give the shooter a free pass.
200 people watched the shooting live.
Nobody reported the video until ~15 minutes after the stream ended.
That means that EVERY person who viewed this video live did so without feeling the need to report it as objectionable, and the vast majority of those people arrived via 8chan.
It illustrates exactly what kind of person frequents the web communities that the terrorist did.
That depends on how you feel about censorship. Do you think platforms should proactively and unilaterally censor content that has - at the time of submission - not been the subject of user reports or any other external signal? Would you feel that way if it happened to content you were submitting, that you felt was perfectly legitimate? Because if not, then yes, the system does depend to some degree on user reports.
What if a viewing user had reported the issue? Would Facebook been able to intervene? What if a user had reported it and Facebook did not act, or did not act quickly?
> I don’t mean to be pedantic, but why do you need to state that. It’s not the users jobs to report the videos. They aren’t getting paid.
There's an idea floating out there that internet companies shouldn't be responsible for doing anything to mitigate social ills on their platforms that can't be accomplished with a staff-light approach [1], so it's somehow exculpatory if a user or their algorithm failed to flag it.
[1] a staff-light approach, in Facebook's case, could still entail a staff numbering in the tens of thousands.
1. Users who want to watch it. They won't report it.
2. Users who are in shock at watching a horrific event unfold and unable to mentally do anything.
3. Users who will be watching a crime happen, and will call the police.
Facebook by saying this are saying they expect the response to be:
"Oh, horrible mass murder crime is happening, I better just "flag" this video so I don't see it and it gets removed."
Heck. Flagging it for removal might even be evidence tampering in a funny kind of way. How do I know if it gets removed early some evidence of this crime isn't lost? I wouldn't want to make that decision.
Whoever wrote that at FB has drunk the "blame the users not the platform" cool aid a bit too much.