> Are we now accusing Facebook for not having enough censorship power?
No, we’re accusing Facebook of selling ads next to a system known to prioritise sensational junk. When your ad platform rolls out before your moderation system, your priorities are wrong and you are morally culpable.
There is also the problem of disparate treatment. “‘Facebook is quick on taking down swastikas, but then they don’t get to Wirathu’s hate speech where he’s saying Muslims are dogs,’ said Phil Robertson, deputy director of Human Rights Watch’s Asia division” [1].
They tried a moderation system. An active and passive moderation system. Conservatives in the U.S. claimed it was "biased" so they stopped. Despite the fact that Facebook had clear records about disinformation campaigns and how untruthful they were. To keep the faux appearance of "intellectual curiosity" they scrapped the moderation team and now eventually the news feed. Talk about political correctness.
When rolling out their platform to other countries they obviously "learned" from yesteryears experience about dealing with disinformation and decided that doing nothing was better than doing something (no matter how perceivably flawed, or how substantially flawed it actually was, which is just foolish). Boy did they learn their lesson here, at the cost of other people's lives. Fortunately, such rhetoric rarely has jarring repercussions in the U.S. (for now).
Blame humanity. Some of the best engineers in the world tried to solve the problem but were only meant with whining about unfairness. No doubt had they employed enforceable, decent standards when moderating content on the implementation of their platform for other countries it would have just been dragged under the meaningless label of "censorship." So they didn't bother apparently. Foolish and privileged.
But at least we treated all sides equally. It only was paid in blood.
Yes I think any new system would have to see the old one grandfathered (give the current incumbents time to find something useful to do instead of jetting off to conferences all year).
Browsers/OS would be reasonably easy in most circumstances, but there are embedded devices, load-balancing configurations, other esoteric uses for DNS (text records, mail etc) that'd have to be considered as well.
An attack surface is ISPs and Governments strongarming them to use their own DNS roots which can then be plugged into the "new" root servers conforming with the theoretical browser vendor, os vendor alliance.
That was my first though, and second one was there should be a centralized place for all the warrant canaries with a simple OK/vanished toggle. I have literally never checked the status of a canary.
Delivery drones (http://www.amazon.com/b?node=8037720011) could make amazon better than actually going out to buy even 1 roll of tape, and returning stuff too.
