Hacker News Reader

Comment by jjani | Hacker News Reader

I'm flabbergasted whenever I read this argument.

It's like saying Amazon's business is not scalable because they need warehouse workers.

Says more about you than anything else. They have completely different business models, so I don't get the shock, let alone the relation. Facebook can't scale if they have to have human moderation at an amount that would actually prevent the pedos. It's just also facially incorrect - Amazon does hire warehouse workers. Facebook does not hire enough content monitors.

> It's just also facially incorrect - Amazon does hire warehouse workers. Facebook does not hire enough content monitors.

This is the whole point. Amazon had to hire hundreds of thousands of warehouse workers to scale. They have 1.5 million employees. Facebook is capable of doing the same. The idea that they "can't scale" if they have to stop unloading their negative externalities is absurd. Amazon scaled, while hiring 1.5 million employees. Meta can scale and do the same.

Amazon actually delivers things. Facebook still has a pedo problem, so no, I don't think you're right and it's certainly not even a good example to make your point with anyway as there is no similarity at all. It's pretty clear facebook's business model doesn't work when you have to actually sift through everything they spread. Amazon has nothing to do with it.

Facebook still has a pedo problem because they still haven't hired 1 million employees to deal with it. Amazon would still have a logistics problem if they hadn't hired 1 million employees to move boxes around.

That doesn't support the conclusion that facebook could, stop beating your dead horse.

The idea that this is literally an unsolvable problem is just absurd. If every Amazon warehouse worker instead became a Facebook pedo monitor making a >95% decrease happen would be pretty trivial.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com