[ad_1]
<div _ngcontent-c14 = "" innerhtml = "
© 2015 Bloomberg Finance LP
When Facebook's CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, published a blog article titled & # 39; a& nbsp; Vision of social networks focused on privacy earlier this month, its goal was to dispel concerns about the company's focus on integrated messaging. & nbsp; "I think the future of communication will shift more and more to encrypted private services," he said, "where people can trust that what they say themselves remains secure and that their messages and their contents will not stay forever. "
Three weeks later, Zuckerberg's "simpler privacy-oriented platform" seems totally at odds with an unregulated live broadcast service that can not fulfill its obligation (moral or otherwise legal) to censor what is transmitted and visualized. & nbsp;
The crucial moment for Facebook was Friday, March 16th at 1:40 pm at the airport & nbsp;Mosque of the city of Christchurch in New Zealand. According to & nbsp;Facebook, & nbsp;The tragic events on Facebook Live were viewed less than 200 times in real time, then by 4,000 more people, before the company removed about 1.5 million downloads from the site.
"People should be comfortable to be themselves, "Zuckerberg had written thirteen days earlier," and should not have to worry about what they share when coming back to hurt them later. We will not keep messages or stories longer than necessary to provide service or longer than people want. "
Ironically, five years ago, Zuckerberg & nbsp; said & nbsp; that In five years most of [Facebook] will be video ". & nbsp; And& nbsp; The Facebook Live Web page invites users to "Broadcast to the world's largest audience with the camera in your pocket." Some decisions must be clearly made. In addition, Facebook may need to start debating the "least worst" option for what it can sacrifice, as calls for material regulation and even the dissolution of social media are sparking wind crooked.
In the last days, the integrity of the company has been questioned following revelations that employees were aware of Cambridge Analytica well before their "official" discovery. Something must give. And with more than one eye on key business performance metrics and its core data trading revenue streams, Facebook Live with its murder, suicidal, and abusive broadcasts may well have to fundamentally change or even disappear completely. .
"We understand that there is a lot of compromise to make, "Zuckerberg said on his blog:" and we are committed to consulting experts and discussing the best way forward. "& Nbsp;Fortunately, society now has the opportunity to do what is required. So what happens next?
The essential contradiction
The Facebook Live software was launched in 2015, long before the 2018 data scandals were revealed. Since then, there has been incidents of violence, suicide and murders. & nbsp; "We recognize that the immediacy of Facebook Live poses unique challenges, "a business blog article recognized shortly after Christchurch. "We use artificial intelligence to detect and prioritize videos that may contain suicidal or harmful actions, we have improved the context we provide to reviewers so that they can make the most informed decisions and we have built systems that allow us to quickly contact first responders to get help. floor."
But it does not work. There is a growing list of inappropriate broadcasts. And the nature of the world obsessed with social media in which we now live means that it's a one-way street.
"Many people have asked why artificial intelligence does not automatically detect the video of last week's attack," the blog continued. "Artificial intelligence systems are based on" learning data, "which means that you need several thousand examples of content in order to form a system capable of detecting certain types of text, images or videos. "
So, essentially, as long as the number of videos of murders, suicides and attacks recorded in the Facebook database will not be significantly higher, the AI will not be able to be trained to detect and intercept such streams in real time.
So trust is up to moderators or user reports. & Nbsp; "During the entire live broadcast, we have not received any single user reports, "Facebook reported." This is important because the reports we receive during the broadcast of a live video are prioritized for a replay accelerated. We do this because, when a video is still live and there is real harm, we have a better chance of alerting the first responders and trying to make a difference. get help in the field. "
As for the possibility of introducing a delay, as seen in live TV shows, the blog rejected it: "There are millions of live broadcasts daily, which means that a delay would not solve the problem because of the sheer number of videos. More importantly, given the importance of user reports, adding a delay would further slow down video viewing and viewing, as well as alerting first responders to help them in the field. "
So, "we can not detect videos and we do not receive reports", but "we can not delay videos because we would not have reports"? And "we can not delay because it would interfere with first responder alerts" even though "we can not detect videos and therefore we can not alert first responders"?
It's good.
A timely sacrifice?
As reported by Quick business& nbsp;shortly after launch, & nbsp; "Live has been presented as Mark Zuckerberg's animal project, with which he is "obsessed". Some think that Live is the key to Facebook's future – a resource that will help it compete with television. "
Three years later, Facebook is committed to overcoming the endless scandal of Cambridge Analytica. Reports of criminal investigations, grand juries, undisclosed secret meetings and "who knew what and when" are the subject of daily debate. And as last year was devoted to headlines, this year will be devoted to surveys. But still, IIn truth, the 2 billion network users lack immediacy and personal impact. The live broadcast of mbad murders has changed that. Politicians and regulators can not ignore this, they can not ignore the implications of a platform that & nbsp;broadcast live images that no modern day broadcaster would take into account, which continue to self-control, that exist in a seemingly unregulated bubble.
And so the current contradiction does not work. Facebook has a decision to make. For now, it's in their hands, but that could change. The European Union is clearly determined to give the example. But when FTC fine and when American politicians decide how they will react to the latest events, we may see some serious changes. Senator Warren will not be the only one to call for drastic measures. & Nbsp; With the current flood of important information about the role of social and traditional media in supporting extremism, the danger for Facebook Live lies in the fact that it's part of the "concept" "operations" of the extremists. The ability to live stream forms or even to provoke an attack. Terrorists crave advertising. Never in history have they had the opportunity to control emissions.
If Facebook can not protect everything and win on all fronts, is it sacrificing Facebook Live to protect the core revenue of data trading and is it devoting more than rhetoric to the shift in confidentiality? Obviously, they prefer not, but if the demand for regulation and even breakage makes more noise, it could easily become the least damaging solution.
"I understand that many people do not think Facebook can or even would like to build this type of privacy-focused platform, "Zuckerberg admitted," because, frankly, we do not currently have a reputation for creating services protection of privacy and we have always focused on tools for more open sharing. But we have shown time and again that we can evolve to create the services that people really want. & Nbsp;It's the future, I hope we will help realize it. "
Well, let's see …
">
© 2015 Bloomberg Finance LP
When Facebook's CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, published an article on his blog titled Vision focused on privacy for social networking earlier this month, its intention was to dispel any concerns about the company's focus on integrated messaging. "I think the future of communication will shift more and more to encrypted private services," he said, "where people can trust that what they say to themselves remains safe and secure. that their messages and their content will not remain forever. "
Three weeks later, Zuckerberg's "simpler platform that focuses on privacy" seems totally at odds with an unregulated live broadcast service that can not fulfill its obligation (moral if not legal) ) to censor what is transmitted and visualized.
The crucial moment for Facebook was at 1:40 pm on Friday, March 16th at Mosque of the city of Christchurch in New Zealand. according to Facebook, The tragic events on Facebook Live were viewed less than 200 times in real time, then by 4,000 more people, before the company removed about 1.5 million downloads from the site.
"People should be comfortable to be themselves, "Zuckerberg wrote thirteen days earlier," and they should not have to worry about what they share in. coming back to hurt them later. We will not keep messages or stories longer than necessary to provide service or longer than people want. "
Ironically, five years ago, Zuckerberg said that "In five years most of [Facebook] will be video. "And The Facebook Live webpage encourages users to "broadcast to the world's largest audience with the camera in their pocket". Some decisions must be clearly made. In addition, Facebook may need to start debating the "least worst" option for what it can sacrifice, as calls for material regulation and even the dissolution of social media are sparking wind crooked.
In recent days, the integrity of the company has once again been questioned as a result of revelations about the Cambridge Analytica badysis by staff well before their "official" discovery. Something must give. And with more than one eye on key business performance metrics and its core data trading revenue streams, Facebook Live with its murder, suicidal, and abusive broadcasts may well have to fundamentally change or even disappear completely. .
"We understand that there is a lot of compromise to be made, "Zuckerberg said on his blog," and we are committed to consulting with experts and discussing the best way to go from here. ". Fortunately, society now has the opportunity to do what is required. So what happens next?
The essential contradiction
The Facebook Live software was launched in 2015, long before the 2018 data scandals were revealed. Since then, there have been acts of violence, suicides and murders. "We recognize that the immediacy of Facebook Live brings unique challenges, "acknowledged a blog about the company shortly after Christchurch.We use artificial intelligence to detect and prioritize videos that may contain suicidal or harmful actions, we have improved the context we provide to reviewers so that they can make the most informed decisions and we have built systems that allow us to quickly contact first responders to get help. floor."
But it does not work. There is a growing list of inappropriate broadcasts. And the nature of the world obsessed with social media in which we now live means that it's a one-way street.
"Many people have asked why artificial intelligence did not automatically detect the video of last week's attack," the blog continues. "Artificial intelligence systems are based on" learning data ", which means that you need several thousand examples of content in order to form a system capable of detecting certain types of text, images or videos. "
So, essentially, as long as the number of videos of murders, suicides and attacks recorded in the Facebook database will not be significantly higher, the AI will not be able to be trained to detect and intercept such streams in real time.
And so, trust lies with moderators or user reports. "We have not received any user reports during any live broadcast, "said Facebook. This is important because the reports we receive during the broadcast of a live video are prioritized for an expedited review. We do this because, when a video is still live and there is real harm, we have a better chance of alerting the first responders and trying to make a difference. get help in the field. "
As for the possibility of introducing a delay, as seen in live TV shows, the blog rejected it: "There are millions of live broadcasts daily, which means that a delay would not solve the problem because of the sheer number of videos. Most importantly, given the importance of user reports, adding a delay would further slow down the viewing and viewing of videos, as well as alerting first responders to help them in the field. "
So, "we can not detect videos and we do not receive reports", but "we can not delay videos because we would not have reports"? And "we can not delay because it would interfere with first responder alerts" even though "we can not detect videos and therefore we can not alert first responders"?
It's good.
A timely sacrifice?
As reported by Quick business shortly after the launch, "Live has been presented as Mark Zuckerberg's animal project, with which he is "obsessed". Some think that Live is the key to Facebook's future, a resource that will help it compete with television. "
Three years later, Facebook is committed to overcoming the endless scandal of Cambridge Analytica. Reports of criminal investigations, grand juries, undisclosed secret meetings and "who knew what and when" are the subject of daily debate. And as last year was devoted to headlines, this year will be devoted to surveys. But still, IIn truth, the 2 billion network users lack immediacy and personal impact. The live broadcast of mbad murders has changed that. Politicians and regulators can not ignore this, they can not ignore the implications of a platform that broadcast live images that no modern day broadcaster would take into account, which continue to self-control, that exist in a seemingly unregulated bubble.
And so the current contradiction does not work. Facebook has a decision to make. For now, it's in their hands, but that could change. The European Union is clearly determined to give the example. However, when the fine imposed by the FTC falls and the American politicians determine how to react to the latest events, we may see some serious changes. Senator Warren will not be the only one to call for drastic measures. With the current important news feed around the role of social and traditional media in supporting extremism, the danger for Facebook Live is that it becomes an integral part of the "concept of operations" for the extremists. The ability to live stream forms or even to provoke an attack. Terrorists crave advertising. Never in history have they had the opportunity to control emissions.
If Facebook can not protect everything and win on all fronts, is it sacrificing Facebook Live to protect the core revenue of data trading and is it devoting more than rhetoric to the shift in confidentiality? Obviously, they prefer not, but if the demand for regulation and even breakage makes more noise, it could easily become the least damaging solution.
"I understand that many people think that Facebook can not and does not want to build this type of platform focused on the protection of privacy, "admitted Zuckerberg," because, frankly, we do not have the reputation to create privacy protection services. & # 39; historically, we have focused on tools for more open sharing. But we have shown time and again that we can evolve to create the services that people really want. It is the future that I hope we will help to bring to life. "
Well, let's see …
