Facebook owner Meta sued for inciting hatred in Ethiopia
Unless there is news about Facebook employees intentionally changing their algorithm to promote violence directly, none of these arguments feel genuine. We&#x27;re past the point where we can compare the world with and without Faceboook, when a social media site becomes unavailable to a certain group they will go to an alternative, as seen with Parler.<p>Facebook mining and profiting from harvesting political user data shows a direct conflict of interest between keep data private and making money. When Facebook is used as a platform by hate groups, I can&#x27;t see how they would meaningfully profit from it. Saying that encouraging or ignoring it would increase userbase is very short sighted, at the bare minimum it would caused the group being targeted to leave.<p>These situations feel more like the debate of whether ISPs are a public utility and the EARN IT act and section 230. Holding Facebook 100% accountable would set a very dangerous precedent. Facebook is not an entity and without showing hateful posts&#x2F;comments were highlighted while alternatives were not, this feels like an argument against math.<p>Popular posts reflect the interests of the vocal population. Assigning morality to the math used in an algorithm is a failure to understand the purpose or function of it. &quot;Inciting&quot; would means the algorithm promoted a hateful post despite the underlying signals saying it shouldn&#x27;t be promoted.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.culawreview.org&#x2F;journal&#x2F;extending-corporate-tort-liability-to-social-media-algorithms" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.culawreview.org&#x2F;journal&#x2F;extending-corporate-tort...</a>