Facebook Should Trust Our Innocence

… while still reacting quickly and with clear intent once it’s clear that any of us, its users, has abandoned it and is tempting others to do the same.

Plenty of commenters have criticized Mark Zuckerberg after an interview with Recode in which he seemed to suggest that those who deny the existence of the Holocaust, something that the social media mogul finds offensive, should not be outright banned from Facebook because it is very hard if not impossible for the company to know their intent and their real beliefs.

Zuckerberg has since clarified his comments and there’s some nuance in the interview that many critics should have picked up on. But the biggest mistake that this line of criticism makes is that it fails to show trust in individuals and in the better angels of our human nature.

When one individual engages in speech that suggests the Holocaust has not happened Facebook should be aware of his or her position and even flag their posts in a non-public way, while giving them more information, alternatives, clear signs that their position is not supported by facts. Only when and if that user of Facebook fails to engage with this new info and doubles down on his position should the platform take down the offending post and maybe even consider taking down the account if the offense is repeated.

Humans do not have the time and the energy to always investigate everything and to make sure that all their ideas are entirely based on facts. Sometimes their wrong ideas or their biased judgements have no direct impact on their conduct or simply fail to be offensive in any way. There’s no need for a social network to police those but there might be a place to give friends or acquaintances of a poster a way to do so.

Only when someone posts something clearly aims to recruit others to their false opinion or when they are aiming to weaponize a false piece of info should Facebook step in, gently at first and (although it is impossible to perfectly evaluate the inner life of a social media user) then make a decision on what and why it can remove.

When and if an official page denies the Holocaust or delivers clearly false information (the type of situation that InfoWars often finds itself in) then Facebook needs to be more forceful in its enforcement, mainly by cutting down the reach of offending pages while taking down individual posts and then by banning them.

Facebook and Zuckerberg are often, these days, in the crosshair and rightfully so but we should not force a very negative view of humanity on the company and on its employees. Humans, the companies they create and the social spaces that they create are often flawed and filled with falsehoods. Bans and takedowns are necessary tools but we cannot entirely rely on them to create a pristine world, filled entirely with beliefs and opinions based on perfect knowledge.

Steam Needs to Balance Freedom with Responsibility

It is pretty clear that Valve, the company in charge of the dominating PC video game retail and distribution system that is Steam, is aiming to keep as far as possible from being responsible about it and plans to allow almost any developer to deliver almost any title on it.

The new policy, announced in a rather long and somewhat confused blog post just before the start of the week of E3 2018, explains that a recent controversy over mature material has convinced the company that is should allow developers to offer video games without any restrictions (other than legal ones linked to the territory where they are made and sold) while relying on the users to vote with their money and to make sure that those who do not deliver any value will be left behind.

The new Valve policy is a boon from a freedom of expression perspective and will allow more niche audiences to get cool content from Steam, a good thing, while also increasing the number of titles available, which is both great and a problem for gamers, given the limited tools for curation that are available.

The decision to tweak what is allowed to arrive on the digital distribution service will also make it easier for the company to defend its decisions, because it can rely on freedom as the core concept, giving it space to dispense largely with moderation and curation. Gamers will have to pick up this responsibility and itțs unclear whether Valve has any new aids for them.

Steam is dominant at the moment but it will be interesting to see whether rivals, from GOG to publisher driven services to itch to others, will make curation one of their own selling points and can use it to eat into the market share of the Valve product.

Until them I am happy that more potentially cool games will be launched but I think that Valve should carry more of the curation and moderation burden, which is possible even while remaining faithful to the idea of free expression in the video game medium.