Hacker News Reader

Monetisation. Facebook has a commercial imperative to distribute content regardless of what that content espouses. None of the other companies have any commercial imperative to generate income from you after you purchase access to their services/devices. Sure, they could play a role in preventing crime (and often do, e.g. the way printers print identifiable patterns on printouts to track printer usage). But in the chain you describe, Facebook has a direct financial reward for distributing such content (via displaying ads) and no other means of generating income.

> what makes Facebook special in this chain such that it is their responsibility to perform the filtering

Distribution. Each step until Facebook doesn't involve sharing with others, it's between you and a machine until that

Any link in the chain will prevent distribution if broken, there is nothing special about Facebook besides being the last - and arguably only - link where breaking a single link is sufficient to break all the chains to the document at once. But you could also prevent distribution by breaking the download for everyone or by breaking the upload for me. As I said, Facebook is only special because it is a singular point, there will always be multiple word processors, browsers, or service providers. On the other hand not even this is really true, if you generalize Facebook to a content sharing platform, then even this singular link vanishes.

So maybe you mean more like the discoverability for people is provided by Facebook. But would this then not also imply that search engines have to filter their search results? And in both cases I could argue that the service provider preventing the upload would also prevent discoverability on Facebook, and not only on Facebook but on the entire internet at once.

But Facebook is the fan-out link, which does seem special. everything on either other side is 1:1, and then Facebook fans it a million ways.

No I don't mean discoverability (although, that too) and no I don't think search engines are involved at all. They link to the content, they don't host it.

Facebook hosts the content and makes it available to the public. That is why they are special. None of the other steps do both

Like all social contracts, it's subtle. Facebook is the "meeting place" and final location of sharing the content. Similar to an assualt happening in a park at night, you could look at the trainers the perpetrator wore, the mode of public transportation they took, etc, or the council could install lights in the park as they control the space (not a perfect metaphor).

Responsibility is the burden of those with the most means to enact change. There's no formal chain of logic for deciding where that burden lays. Your example presents every actor in the chain as equal options but depending on your political (philosophical) leaning you will want different actors to burden more or less of the responsibility. (control from the source or control from the event, or anywhere inbetween).

Your analogy is that FB is like the park where an assault happens? So I assume you are saying that FB has no responsibility whatsoever?

Facebook is the park and the council that controls it.

Facebook is the only step that treats the content semantically rather than as a stream of bytes.

Facebook's business relies on moderating content to drive engagement to get ad/user-data money.

Not to mention, slavery is against Facebook's own TOS. So Facebook has taken up this responsibility themselves.

Because in this case and most others (but not all cases) it's the publication/sharing of the content that is the problem.

An advert for a slave isn't an issue if you write it, print it out and keep it in a draw. Likewise you can produce as much blasphemous, libellous, and obscene content as you like but if you don't share it with anyone, no one will care (unless you broke some law in creating it - stolen information, child pornography etc.)

>what makes Facebook special

In your scenario they seem to be the place other people are "discovering" and downloading the PDF from. Perhaps gathering together to discuss whatever is in the PDF and reinforce each other's beliefs about the content. This could of course be done with a website/blog/forums but the reach of Facebook is of course immense, global and pervasive in pretty much every country. So Facebook is different because of its scale, network effect and ease of discoverability. The last issue with Facebook I would point out is that due to its corporate structure and size Facebook is only accountable to Mark Zuckerberg, and Mark Zuckerberg is accountable to no one.

I think the real issue facing society is that Facebook will always err on the side of user engagement unless forced to behave otherwise. If Facebook was really just about "connecting people" which I take to be innocuous communication between users and sharing pictures of kids/pets/etc. then they would have to strip out the features that allow their worst communities to form and operate. But Facebook knows that crazy grandparents sharing conspiracy theories and racist drivel drives engagement and so that content largely remains. It's up to our societies to solve this problem, because history has shown that Facebook will only do the right thing when forced to.

Facebook makes editorial decisions on your content--they can choose to put it in front of 100k people or 20 people, all driven exclusively by revenue potential.

Word doesn't decided whether or not what you're typing should make it to the document based on how it impacts their revenue. Adobe doesn't render Mein Kampf instead of your doc based on revenue potential.

If a random person hosts that pdf/image etc. on their personal server they are also responsible for serving that content. So I don't see how this differs for a big company. You make content available therefore become a publisher. Also hosting companies can and should be held responsible for the content of their servers their customers host.

Word, Adobe, Chrome, Safari and the Canon printer are either something that you own or lease access to and is under the control of the user, thus it is the users responsibility.

The ISPs are common carriers and do not get a say.

Facebook is not under the control of the user, and not a common carrier, so they should be held responsible, at least to some degree.

Because right now we only have the capability to regulate content where it is stored and after the fact of its storage, hence Facebook. But your suggestions are all great ideas—all forms of on-device scanning which, last I checked, HN was all up in arms against when it was Apple who was about to do it.

Facebook is literally and legally the publisher.

> what makes Facebook special in this chain

Responsibility should be proportional to profit. I am not even sure Facebook is the most profitable link in this chain, but it probably is.

> Is it just a matter of practicality because Facebook is the single point of failure in that chain that can not be bypassed

And they have the best capability for that reason.