At this point, the “at our scale …” argument is such an arrogant excuse for doing damage all over the world. If I can’t ensure people are treated fairly, don’t get harassed, etc, maybe it’s not a viable business then. Stop offloading all kinds of externalities onto the public.
I'm not a fan of these privately owned social media platforms with no oversight, fairness, or recourse for the public, but people want corporate social media and I'm not sure what these giants are supposed to do or what people even want here.
Maybe? It's not that crazy of an idea that if you can't serve your clients that you are put out of business?
Given hospitals are frequently privately owned, one could argue Facebook provides a public service in running a social media platform. Discriminating models based on public goodness is simply command-economy picking of winners and losers based on politicians’ limited knowledge and preferences.
Perhaps if free/ad was not workable we could see subscription services with better moderation. If not (people won’t pay), then it’s not actually worth that much to users so it’s fine to let it die.
Just give the user a warning that Facebook sees some likelihood that the site is a phishing site, and let the user decide by himself whether he wants to follow the link or not.
If we instead say that people are more important than a corporation’s right to scale, then a single large-scale violation would have been the end of Facebook and have criminal consequences for the leadership of the company. The scale of the act should make you more culpable, not less.
What you're saying is that if something isn't perfect, it shouldn't exist at all. And guess what: Nothing is perfect.
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/09/myanmar-faceb...
Moderation and filtering needs to be decoupled from content hosting and authn/authz. This is a major part making me optimistic about bluesky/atproto.