[valicord]

The evidence shows that Facebook is blocking Linux related posts, while the initial "policy makers decided" claim is significantly stronger and is not supported by anything. Much more obvious explanation is that some buggy ML classifier has added the distrowatch website to the spam list which triggers automated enforcement without any policy maker involvement.

[anigbrowl]

The purpose of a system is what it does. If this behavior is happening because nobody with authority cares to do anything about it, that's also a decision. I never understand why people rush to make excuses for these huge companies awash in resources with no real accountability or customer support.

[emmelaich]

Sorta agree, but it's useful to distinguish proximate cause vs ultimate cause nonetheless.

[valicord]

I'm obviously not claiming that Facebook moderation is perfect but it's a pretty big stretch to go from "Facebook does a bad job of reducing false positives" to "Facebook purposefully bans Linux discussions".

> I never understand why people rush to make excuses for these huge companies awash in resources with no real accountability or customer support

Because if nobody pushes back against the hyperbole then it just becomes a competition of who can make up the most exaggerated claim in order to attract the most attention.

[anigbrowl]

Would that people would make the same effort to push back against PR departments, which in the case of social media companies often end up enabling the industrialized production and distribution of hyperbole.

[valicord]

Where can I downvote the PR department?

[anigbrowl]

Wherever you see someone repeating their talking points.

[phendrenad2]

There's a lot of "come on just let me have my hyperbole, man" begging on the internet lately. And yes, it needs to be beaten back with truth and logic. I don't understand the mentality of people who think any amount of hyperbole is acceptable, because the effect it has on public perception is very serious. People get their news from Facebook. Should they? Probably not. But if we let people have their fun little "maybe X.... I'm going to go ahead and say DEFINITELY X" clout-chasing moment then we're allowing a lot of people to be deceived.

[jorams]

If "some buggy ML classifier" is allowed to make decisions that trigger broad enforcement, that classifier is, for all intents and purposes, a policy maker. The claim made by the article is somewhat broad relative to the evidence presented, but whether policy decisions are automated or not doesn't really matter.

[HDThoreaun]

This is a horrible butchering of language. You know that "policy maker" means person in everyday usage, stop being obtuse.

[bitzun]

In the past I would have agreed with this statement, but nowadays I would assume an organization's actions are their policy until they state and act otherwise.

[thowawatp302]

Humans made a policy that said the computer system could do this, so while GP might be inaccurate, you’re not right either.

[Dylan16807]

That's only if humans are properly in charge of the system. With lots of moderation tools, they aren't.

[m-s-y]

then in this case, the policy maker is the person that empowered the AI.

doesn’t change the fact that the AI is seemingly being given final authority over policy decisions.

[bee_rider]

They have a screenshot of Facebook reviewing the post and deciding not to restore it, so I guess it isn’t just a buggy ML classifier (although it could be a buggy ML classifier combined with a human that doesn’t feel able to overturn it).

[guappa]

I don't think they actually ever review anything.

I've reported nazi content a number of times and it never violated the policy.

[genewitch]

What you just did is a fallacy. That's fine, but it needs to be asked: what sort of "Nazi content" did you report?

If it was a user calling Trump a Nazi, then it should have been removed, and their moderation failed.

If it just espouses Nazi ideology or rhetoric, that's free speech in the US.

That's just how it is. It's part of this country. I have to listen to both the throaty, greasy growl of the white supremacist and the piercing howl of the victims wounded by words.

edit to add additional context: There's a difference between someone "posting" "nazi" content on facebook and here on HN, for example. on FB they figure you're seeing it because of your actions. Your friends, a group you joined, etc. If it's a friend posting on their wall, your moderation task is easy, block the friend, unfriend, talk to the friend, call them out. regardless of your decision, FB doesn't have any obligation or, i would argue, right to step in and moderate in those circumstances. If it's in a group, the moderators of the group have to decide if it represents the group. If it does and you disagree, leave the group.

Someone spouting nazi nonsense on HN is spouting it into a megaphone on the streetcorner, as it were. I have to read the content, even if i didn't actively follow that user or "join" that group.

there are different moderation strategies. merely invoking "nazi" as the boogyman to back up your point is fallacious.

[ghssds]

It's to easy to hide behind a computer to avoid responsibilities. "It's not my fault, the computer did it!" is a bad excuse. Computers don't have agency but people do. Anything a computer someone own do is one's fault. One had the choice to not boot it. One had the choice to not buy it.

[blasphemers]

The evidence only shows that fb is blocking distrowatch links

[vkou]

And it's doing so because of, or as a consequence of their policies.

If it's a consequence of a 'buggy ML classifier', well, it's FB's policy to use one for censorship.

You can't launder accountability with an 'It's AI' black box.