"The Oversight Board has upheld Meta’s decision to leave up a video that was edited to make it appear as though U.S. President Joe Biden is inappropriately touching his adult granddaughter’s chest, and which is accompanied by a caption describing him as a “pedophile.”"
"Additionally, the alteration of this video clip is obvious and therefore unlikely to mislead the “average user” of its authenticity, which, according to Meta, is a key characteristic of manipulated media."
@olives@qoto.org Given the way Section 230 is enforced, this is unlikely... but given that Meta is no longer acting as a moderator and is instead acting as an editor, perhaps its time to revoke the safe harbor protections currently shielding them from liability.
@Melpomene https://qoto.org/@olives/111884417729866558
As I kind of wrote there, though after you posted that lol, Facebook almost seems to fancy themselves as some sort of state.
They have "policy documents" which are like "laws" (though, it wouldn't surprise me, if these weren't completely open to the public). A "fake court" (the "oversight board") which hands down "judgements". Probably a "profession" of people who cook up "policy documents". And probably, contractors (outsourcing has it's own problems, one they might not understand the culture, two don't shake the boat), who execute it.
I really think this whole thing with platforms has gone way too far. I wonder whether companies like Facebook which are so big and try to be so many things should even exist. Facebook does video, Facebook does groups, Facebook does "family networks", those web developer / marketer facing services where they track you on unrelated sites so as to make the entire Internet "likeable" or for marketing, Facebook does Instagram, Facebook does Whatsapp (Whatsapp is better, although even there, there are shenanigans like not encrypting the metadata). It's not even really about intermediary liability.
I also wonder whether platforms haven't coddled these QAnon type people too much. It's strange when they have a stringent standard in one area, then manipulating media to make it look like someone (in this case, the president) is some sort of predator is alright. I understand the argument that "they can never make everyone happy" and that "moderation is hard" but it feels strange.
Even there, though, again, I think platforms like this shouldn't really exist.
@olives@qoto.org I wouldn't say that they should not exist per se; we just need to lift the protections for them when they slide into an editor position v. a moderator position, get good privacy laws, and impose substantial fines for violations that are a percent of raw revenue.
It is sad that the old, independent internet has been nearly entirely subverted by corps. I get weird looks when I say I lack Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, but people think I'm insane to not have a Google account.
@Melpomene How do you suggest distinguishing between the two?
@olives@qoto.org It's squishy given the way 230 is written and moderation v. editing is not well-defined. I'd have to really sit down and think through it, but broad strokes... moderation (should) apply site rules evenly. So if posting elbow pics is barred, then moderation would be censoring elbow pics. If, however, the site is enforcing unevenly (favoring certain elbows) then thaf seems to edge into editorial versus pure moderation.
Certainly, qualitative type judgments would necessarily be harder judge. But in the Biden case, that's pretty clearly false news. Facebook's policy bars that, I do believe.
@Melpomene I think quite a few of these companies have a vaguer public policy, and a more specific private one which they give to moderators (there are a few possible good reasons for this, but I suspect it also lets them sweep gaffes under the carpet by *quietly changing the policy* and acting as if it was always that way).
I think it is more a matter of transparency, or the policy being misleading, than a matter of moderation.
It can also be subjective, and might lead to someone splitting hairs over each decision, which runs against the intention of 230. In this Biden case, it feels easier to handle, because they probably announced it months in advance, collected comments, and made an announcement. How many decisions do they make a day other than it?
@olives@qoto.org Probably, and interpreting 230 is always going to be difficult... which is why companies don't really care whether they're acting as editors or moderators. Inconsistency in keeping materially similar defamatory statements does at least suggest editorial activity though; if I allow Bob to post anti-Melpomene lies but ban anti-Olives lies, I seem to be making editorial decisions. My concern will always be abuse though; those with resources know how to wield the court as a weapon for sure.
@Melpomene It might be one of those cases where they try to be "apolitical", and consequently, wind up underenforcing their policies somewhere. The decision also indicates that Facebook might not enforce this policy, when someone isn't "using AI":
"The Board agrees with Meta that the content does not violate the company’s Manipulated Media policy because the clip does not show President Biden saying words he did not say, and it was not altered through AI. The current policy only prohibits edited videos showing people saying words they did not say (there is no prohibition covering individuals doing something they did not do) and only applies to video created through AI."
It is strangely specific.
Facebook might be going ahead with "labelling" following this particular case.
@olives@qoto.org Oh, but I do wish for the old web back.
@Melpomene I think the problem with these sorts of platforms is that they then try to launder their "world view" as a sort of "how the world ought to be". People from there show up to conventions, conferences, round tables, and talk about "how they do things".
https://www.theregister.com/2007/09/25/facebook_subpoena/
https://www.theregister.com/2007/10/17/facebook_agrees_stronger_controls/
https://www.theregister.com/2010/09/12/international_censorship/
To Zuckerberg, nipples are spooky, presumably because an Attorney General knocked on the door one day, and he agreed to censor "bad things". Also, as a former Google lawyer (Daphne) pointed out, these sorts of companies tend to forget why something is in place, and assume "this is the way things ought to be".
But, it could be other things. There are quite a few ways in which them doing so much can be troublesome tbh.
It's like an intersection of a PR / marketing (because they have to impressive the investors with their "tech") / media bubble.