> Eight days after the elder Amare was murdered, Facebook finally removed the post, according to the researcher.
Doesn't sound like they "actively policed" the content sufficiently.
If an ethnic conflict occurs in a relatively obscure region are they going to spin up new moderators on the AWS spot market?
These things aren’t perfect or fast.
See that's the problem with omniscience, you kind of need it to police EVERYTHING. Something will always make it through.
If they don't have enough resources to review the outputs from their algorithm, then to bad, just show posts from friends only.
The same is true for venues, sports, shops, workplaces, etc... why not software companies?
People commit crimes inside businesses all the time, and under most circumstances the owner of a business is not liable for damages resulting from a third-party committing a crime on their property. People also use various communication tools to advocate and plan crimes, and the operators of those tools are almost never liable.
What's different here is that Facebook makes decisions about what content to show to people. It uses an algorithm to do so, and it is aware that the algorithm has a tendency to promote violent content. While I'm broadly for platform immunity, that seems like a good situation to add an exception.