| ▲ | mgaunard 4 hours ago |
| No, I would call that being confused about the distinction between law making and law enforcement, which are traditionally very distinct things. It makes sense for there to be leeway due to the scale, automations and high rate of false positives with limited capabilities to correct them. |
|
| ▲ | munk-a 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| For what reason should we allow such leeway? No hosted platform in the 80s was responsible for a similar amount. Maybe if Meta can't properly police such a large platform it shouldn't be allowed to operate one. Facebook doesn't have to exist and we don't have to accept weak cries of "it's our best effort!" |
| |
| ▲ | parineum 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | There should be leeway because sexual content is subjective and it gives a few chances to allow users to learn where the line is. | | |
| ▲ | munk-a 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Let me clarify - why should we offer Meta leeway to implement such a flawed review system. | | |
| ▲ | parineum 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Why shouldn't we? It seems an incredibly difficult problem. They have reviewers who make subjective calls on subjective rules. The leeway not only gives the opportunity for the user to improve but also gives the reviewers leeway to flag borderline posts without harshly punishing users. 17 is a weird number but having a number is perfectly reasonable to me. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | lubujackson 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| 79% of ALL child sex trafficking. 4 out of 5 child sex slaves exist thanks to Facebook's policies. But sure, go on and talk about "leeway" and "limited capabilities" for a company worth nearly a trillion dollars. Do you honestly believe this is acceptable? What are your vested interests here? |
| |
| ▲ | kstrauser 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Do you have a citation for that? You may be right for all I know. I don't know much about it. But that seems unlikely to me, and if it's true, I'd like a reference I can show others when I'm trying to get them to finally close their account. | | |
| ▲ | pinkmuffinere 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | The claim is made in the main article, supported by this link [1]. But I agree, I suspect it’s sensationalized, just because that number is _so high_. [1] https://techoversight.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/08-2023... | | |
| ▲ | kstrauser 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Oh! Wow, so it is. Thanks! > [the report] found that 65% of child sex trafficking victims recruited on social media were recruited from Facebook Even in 2020, I'm very skeptical that so many children were on Facebook that it could account for 2/3 of recruitment. My own kids say that they and their friends are all but allergic to Facebook. It's the uncool hangout for old people, not where teens want to be. I may be wrong, and I'm certainly not going to tell someone that they're wrong for citing a government study. Still, I doubt it. | | |
| ▲ | jacobsimon 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The number is wrong / the citation is misleading. It’s closer to 20-30% according to that study, the 79% is referring specifically to cases involving social media, of which Meta platforms are obviously going to make up a large percentage. There’s also a reporting bias here I’m sure - if Meta is better at reporting these cases then they will become a larger percentage, etc. | |
| ▲ | saalweachter 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | You don't really need a majority of potential victims to go to location X for victims from location X to make up a majority of victims; that just means that location X is a low-risk, high-reward place for criminals to lurk looking for victims. | |
| ▲ | pinkmuffinere 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Thanks for looking into it and pulling out that quote. I notice there are some moving goalposts — the parent article claims 79% of _all_ minor sexual trafficking (emphasis mine), but the govt report found > 65% of child sex trafficking victims recruited _on social
media_ were recruited from Facebook, with 14% being recruited on Instagram (Emphasis mine). I think the parent article is repeatedly lying about the facts, that’s super annoying. I’m not at all surprised that Facebook and Instagram have the lions share of social-media victims, because they also have the lions share of social media users. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | amluto 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > 4 out of 5 child sex slaves exist thanks to Facebook's policies. Even if your 79% number is correct, this does not follow. It like if someone said, 30 years ago, that 95% of total advertisements were in the classified section that 9 out of 10 retail sales happened thanks to the classifieds. (I’m not trying to excuse Facebook’s behavior. But maybe criticisms of Facebook would be more effective if they stayed on track.) | | |
| ▲ | kelseyfrog 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Observer take: until your parenthetical it looks like you're supporting Facebook's actions by nitpicking weird edge cases. | | |
| ▲ | amluto 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I’m not nitpicking a weird edge case. I’m nitpicking a completely unsound inference. Even if Facebook indeed accounts for 79% of total instances of children being trafficked, it does not follow at all that removing Facebook from the picture would have reduced the number by anywhere near 79%. | | |
| ▲ | kelseyfrog 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Ok? It still looks like that. Maybe improve your writing or rhetoric if you want it to portray yourself differently? |
| |
| ▲ | Lerc 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | There lies much of the problem. Nobody in Salem wanted to be seen to stand up for witches. I have never had a Facebook account because I never liked what they do, but this 'evidence' against them seems like they are relying on the seriousness of the allegations more than the accuracy. | | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | The problem with witch hunts is witches aren't real; every witch you find is guaranteed to be a false positive. A witch hunt that finds actual witches everywhere isn't really a "witch hunt" in the sense the term is usually used. | | |
| ▲ | Lerc 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | You are saying that from our perspective. I don't think the argument that witches are not real would have gained you much ground back then. We don't have the years on analysis of what actually happened for things happening right now. While a lot of people feel a lot of certainty about all manner of social media harms, the scientific consensus is much less clear. Sure you can pull up studies showing something that looks pretty bad, but you can also find ones that say that climate change is not occurring. The best we have to go on is scientific consensus. The consensus, is not there yet. How do you tell if Jonathan Haidt is another Andrew Wakefield? | | |
| ▲ | kelseyfrog an hour ago | parent [-] | | The most important question is, how do you know you're not the next Andrew Wakefield? I'm genuinely curious how you keep your own epistemic house in order. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
| |
| ▲ | SpicyLemonZest 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Since you're emphasizing the ALL, I am obligated to nitpick that it is not all. The source article says that, but it's wrong; the underlying link clarifies that it's 79% of sex trafficking which occurs on social media. As has been discussed downthread, a social media platform with large marketshare is always going to have a large percentage of every bad thing that can happen on social media. | |
| ▲ | LanceH 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | 80% of people die within 20 miles of their home. So...if they just don't go home, 80% of people would be immortal. |
|
|
| ▲ | exceptione 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| This sounds like almost the best business environment for criminals. "I am sorry judge, yes, it could be that we are involved in crime, but we have been too busy counting billions of dollars each year. As you might understand, businesses are not part of society, they should only be judged on their shareholder value. We reap the profits, society pays for the collateral damage, that's only fair." Yes, you mentioned leeway. That would only make sense in the context of an entity understanding it's role. It does like in the way above. |
|
| ▲ | ceejayoz 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > I would call that being confused about the distinction between law making and law enforcement… I think you're confused. Facebook does neither. Facebook makes and enforces their own policies, not laws. > It makes sense for there to be leeway due to the scale, automations and high rate of false positives with limited capabilities to correct them. They should staff a human review/appeals process again, then. They used COVID as the excuse to discard that cost center. |
|
| ▲ | 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [deleted] |
|
| ▲ | sollewitt 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| They are both the legislature and the judiciary. |
