6 ms·
This is correct, it's monetisation, not commissioning. Facebook isn't paying to produce. It's paying for driving views and clicks on ads, regardless of how. I
by NoLinkToMe 1mo ago
This is correct, it's monetisation, not commissioning.
Facebook isn't paying to produce. It's paying for driving views and clicks on ads, regardless of how.
It's like if I hire a taxi driver to come to my house and drive me to the airport, and the taxi driver happens to run over a person in the process. It would be ridiculous to write 'he hired a driver to run over a person with a car'.
However, this also doesn't fully capture the reality of what is happening.
Let's say I routinely get a taxi, and taxi drivers routinely hit people because I happen to have a policy where I only pay them a large sum if they get to the airport impossibly fast, and the fastest way is to drive dangerously. Suppose I notice that every time I get a taxi, someone is run over because of my payment incentives. Suppose I then write a statement that says I will not pay the taxi if they hit a person. Suppose it keeps happening anyway, and I keep paying anyway. And suppose I benefit directly from this financially, because getting to the airport faster saves me money in missed flights.
Suppose I then do this on a worldwide scale involving many millions of people and create a market around this of tens of billions of dollars, suppose it's having a significant effect on public health and safety worldwide?
I think it's fair to then use more explicit language to hold me to account. I am financing death and destruction after all, even if technically I'm 'just getting a cab'.
- artur_makly 1mo agoThank you for this poignant allegory - its so spot on - it will really open some people's minds here who are overthinking and rationalizing their current Big Corp employments.
- econ 1mo agoThey put you in several opposing camps. They identify the most insane content and show only that to everyone in the opposing camp. No one cares if you clean up after your dog makes a nr 2. The anti dog poop people want to hear you don't give a fk and let Herman poop wherever he likes. Similarly the dog owners don't want to hear you understand. They want you to talk about little poopers getting stuck in your barbed wire with razorblades.
- directevolve 1mo agoAs a US citizen who takes our country’s free speech norms seriously, I don’t think Meta should be aiming to deplatform even the hateful content I vehemently disagree with. I think government should work more on helping people find alternatives to social media. The “town square effect” that makes people feel forced to use these apps is real and pernicious. That feels like a better target for regulation and taxation than content. If your business moat is based on network effects, perhaps there should be the equivalent of a land value tax on your network.
- deleted 1mo ago[deleted]
- bobthepanda 1mo agoI think there is a distinct difference between deplatforming content, and simply not monetizing it. You have the right to shout in the town square but I do not have to put money in your cup when you do it.
- holbrad 1mo agoI think that's an incredibly dangerous slippery slope. If you effectively control what is monetised, you effectively control what is said en masse. It's a distinction without a difference.
- expedition32 1mo agoI have no problem with deplatforming American, Russian, Chinese and Israeli intelligence assets. Sadly we are finding out that our way of life is under threat 24/7 by nefarious barbarians.
- red-iron-pine 1mo agobring back the iron curtain. cut the undersea cables.
- bobthepanda 1mo ago
- deleted 1mo ago[deleted]