Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I think the problem is that if Facebook, Twitter and similar platforms were to publicly present an unambiguous defintion of what 'abusive content' is, then it would become fairly clear that they're engaging in selective enforcement of that standard based on characteristics of the perpetrator such as: market power, governmental influence, number of followers, etc.

For example, if the US State Department press releases start getting banned as misinformation, much as Russian Foreign ministry press releases might be, then I think this would result in a blowback detrimental to Facebook's financial interests due to increased governmental scrutiny. Same for other 'trusted sources' like the NYTimes, Washington Post, etc., who have the ability to retaliate.

Now, one solution is just to lower the standard for what's considered 'abusive' and stop promoting one government's propaganda above anothers, and focus on the most obvious and blatant examples of undesirable content (it's not that big of a list), but then, this could upset advertisers who don't want to be affiliated with such a broad spectrum of content, again hurting Facebook's bottom line.

Once again, an opportunity arises to roll out my favorite quote from Conrad's Heart of Darkness:

"There had been a lot of such rot let loose in print and talk just about that time, and the excellent woman, living right in the rush of all that humbug, got carried off her feet. She talked about ‘weaning those ignorant millions from their horrid ways,’ till, upon my word, she made me quite uncomfortable. I ventured to hint that the Company was run for profit."



If you read the article, he does link showing that at least FB is pretty detailed about what abusive content is?

https://transparency.fb.com/en-gb/policies/community-standar...




Consider applying for YC's Summer 2026 batch! Applications are open till May 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: