How does the "whistleblower"'s stated desires wrt goverment-mandated moderation standards differ from those articulated by representatives of the company itself? Such a framework would shift liability away from the company, possibly reduce their moderation load, and create a significant barrier for entry for potential competitors.
I'll leave it up to the legal system to decide what FB has done that's currently illegal. However, you don't just blow the whistle when you think laws are being broken. Sometimes you do it to start a discussion that can change the laws.
It's clear from the Facebook Files stories and documents that FB has known about the effects of their product on consumers (especially kids) and 1. lied to the public 2. lied to lawmakers 3. didn't change the product in ways that positively impacted kids.
That's obviously messed up and is not (afaik, ianal) covered under current US laws. I do strongly believe that it should. Platforms have responsibility, and S230 entirely takes the responsibility away from them.
To the parent's request, something needs to be concrete and egregious for a prosecutor to chase this.
Facebook is a for profit organization. This is the rule with organizations like this. If given enough time, size, and lack of shielding, any corporation will eventually cause harm in some way.
We seem to have less focus on "Nike whistleblowers" or similar, you get the idea.
I don't want to defend Nike, but still, the fact that people are poor enough to send their kids off to factories to make shoes isn't Nike's fault.
But again, very different issue. Worthwhile to think about, but I don't think it should detract from this one.
But, on a larger level, I see several comments that seem to be implying that talking about the wrongdoing of one company isn't valid unless we talk about the wrongdoing of all companies at the same time.
I think that argument is faulty. If the argument were good, then it wouldn't be possible to talk about any company's wrongdoing because you'll always be leaving others out of the conversation.
Companies are case studies of a problem, any single one is insufficient information for coming up with solutions.
If Nike makes a material claim to investors (e.g. that children labor is not used), but the claim is revealed to be knowingly false, then that's securities fraud.
This "Boo hoo we can't moderate ... " wipes tears with billions of dollars... is deadly comedy, yet lots of people fall for it.
what counts as "moderate"? only removing illegal material? removing fake news as well? maybe remove questionable news as well, as long as it's towards the "greater good"?
Next.
After 4 years of non stop lies from the Trump machine, Q and AntiVaxx, you can fuck right off.