This is one of those rare times I agree with facebook. Why is this Facebook's problem? Sounds like Brazil should be enforcing their laws better. Facebook hosts for-sale postings, how reasonable is it for them to vet every post against scams and illegality?
If you follow this line of thought, the conclusion seems to be that if Facebook were to run ads for illegal drugs, explosives, or humans, it would simply be an indication that some country should be enforcing it's laws better. And Facebook would be totally in clear to continue showing those ads.
Except it is outright illegal to sell drugs, explosives, or humans. Any ad selling those is almost certainly illegal. If humans for sale, post is illegal.
It is not illegal to sell land. A moderator would need to delve into Brazilian law and mapping to determine if that specific sale was illegal.
Indeed. It is complicated, so perhaps not allow selling of land in Brazil than? Because something is hard to do doesn't make it ok not to do it. Facebook is selling illegal products and if it's not capable of getting properly, than it's part of the racket and should be held responsible as so.
Every marketplace has illegal products. Craigslist has stolen cars. Kijiji has stolen pets. eBay has fake collectibles. You will find all manner of scams on Reddit. Fiverr is filled with tons of people willing to do your homework.
Expecting marketplaces to police peer to peer transactions in depth is unreasonable.
I really have to shamelessly plug my marketplace - https://vendiapp.com here. This is exactly why we started this with the goal of helping other marketplaces as well to completely protect its users. We believe marketplaces must start becoming more responsible and accountable for the transactions that they facilitate.
We are currently focussed on the verification of electronic products. But our goal is to verify listings in all verticals with a high risk of fraud.
Interesting, I had a very similar idea for this, but I'm already doing a solo side gig so haven't had the time to work on yet another solo thing. Maybe we can collaborate or chat? Shoot me an email!
Yes, that's all bad as well. But some platforms get removed entirely when there's enough illegal activity. A marketplace that is facilitating should be held responsible. If your community can't be trusted, than yes validation must be done. So yes, I think the platforms that you mention should be handled as well.
Furthermore there are also specific laws against human trafficking and drugs online that seem to up the potential liability for those sales versus say facilitating a stolen iphone or in this case even less provable land sales.
Facebook has the resources and technical expertise to make quite a good pass at figuring this out. This is also unlikely to be the only situation of this sort that they will ever deal with, so the experience of addressing it should be of some value to them too. And this is the sort of technically challenging yet fun and impactful project that helps keep skilled engineered happy. My point here is simply that trying to solve this problem is not some huge net negative for Facebook.
They don't need to be perfect. A rough solution would not require a full and complete legal analysis of Brazil's laws and topography. However their current stance seems to be that they won't even bother trying.
Some drugs (medicine but also recreational) are legal in some countries to just buy anywhere and not in others, as are some type of explosives. Is Facebook banning those outright or actually checking per country what is allowed and what is not? It's a question, I do not use Facebook... If banned outright, is that not the same thing but the other way?
Wait so the only reason it’s bad for Facebook to show ads selling humans is that slavery is illegal in every country? So I guess if one country made slavery legal then it would be fine for Facebook to show ads selling humans everywhere in the world?
#freezuck the judge was just aiming to make an example of Mark for hosting a marketplace, like really, a website!? he wasn't even on trial for the murder for hire scheme
If you take the opposite line, that Facebook is responsible for checking that the product is sold legally, then the conclusion is that Facebook would have to confirm legal ownership of every product before allowing a sale.
This also seems wrong.
The right solution is in the middle: Facebook should spend some effort validating the legality of the sale. The required standard of effort should depend on how much money Facebook is making from the ads, and on an estimate of the proportion of products sold illegally, amongst other things. The former to ensure that a very small similar website is not held to the same standard, the latter to ensure that if 99% of the products are sold illegally then Facebook is responsible.
Without knowing the total volume of these land ads and the proportion of illegal ones, it is hard to tell if there is anything to fix here.
Largely I agree with you, though I don't think your calculation of effort is quite complete. One factor that should be considered is the harm done by allowing the ads.
Facilitating the sale of a stolen phone is not going to be as harmful as facilitating, say, adulterated nutrition supplements.
This dovetails nicely with the full-on terrible and illegal side of things. There are likely not many ads for human trafficking on Facebook, but they are so horrendous that it is still worth expending significant effort to detect and remove them.
And while not comparable to the above situation, I would argue illegal Amazon land deals ads are causing an outsized harm compared to ads for similarly mundane-sounding illegal goods/service/whatever. They deserve special attention.
They don't, this is just random squatters occupying land that isn't theirs. This is basically on par with finding a vacant lot that the owner doesn't check up on and "selling" it while openly admitting that they don't have title to the land and have no rights to the property. What's surprising is that people are foolish enough to pay them anything. They aren't actually buying anything, they could just not give them a dime and go extract the lumber, slash and burn the lot, etc.
How is this different than someone selling the Brooklyn bridge on Craigslist?
It's not. And you could offer the Brooklyn Bridge on Facebook. Transactions don't take place on Facebook. If I browse Facebook for a basketball, we meet up and they want to hand me a soccer ball, I don't give them cash. If you're conducting a trade for land/property, you need to go through all the processes normally involved in property transfer -- survey, title insurance, etc...
Facebook marketplace just links buyers and sellers. Settlement is something else.
Why is everyone so intent on Facebook/Twitter/whatever being the arbiter of truth? These problems aren't new to any of the new tech.
Why do you think it is wrong? If people use public forums to do illegal activities then it makes the job for law enforcement much easier.
Using the same logic of enforcing marketplace, there needs to be an observer for every private conversation on messenger so that no illegal pictures are sent.
> how reasonable is it for them to vet every post against scams and illegality?
You gotta be kidding me. Facebook is a multi-billion dollar corporation. Just make them do it. Their legal departments will figure it out. They'll probably do it even faster than the brazilian authorities too. Google once fed brazilian judges this exact same excuse after being ordered to take down content. They got told to figure out a way to comply since surely Google has the capability to do it. As far as I know, they did.
How many problems would be fixed if we stopped feeling sorry for the rich corporations and started requiring them to assume responsibility for the messes they create?
> How many problems would be fixed if we stopped feeling sorry for the rich corporations and started requiring them to assume responsibility for the messes they create?
Instead of "problems would be fixed", it would be "how many more problems would be created".
- USPS should assume responsibility for scam mails since they help deliver them. Laws would be created to require USPS to "screen" all mails and refuse to deliver if it deems the mails are spam. After all, it's USPS "greed" to allow those spammers/scammers to send mail.
- Telcos should assume responsibility for telephone frauds. Breaking News: Costco got hacked via telephone social engineering, T-Mobile is being sued. After all, it's the Telcos's "greed" to allow those scammers to make the phone call. They should have an army of operators listening to the phone call and stop the fraud before it happens.
The worst outcome? By "stopped feeling sorry for the rich corporations", we are actually pushing to give them even more power, over our live.
- By asking Facebook to police what is legal, we're handing them the right to decide what's right/wrong. At the same time, it creates even more regulatory captures, discouraging upstart alternatives to join the ring.
The emotionally charged call might appeal to the popular us-vs-them, rich-vs-poor climate, but if we're not careful, it might lead us to the wrong solution.
Not really. Facebook is not some neutral carrier of information. It's not a packet switched network. It's pretty much an advertising company. How could they not be responsible for the adverts they run?
It's actually illegal to tamper with mail or wiretap phones without a warrant. The post office and telecommunications companies can't know what is going on. Same logic applies to networks and it's actually enforced via encryption. Facebook has complete knowledge of everything. It has every bit of information required to make these decisions. Failing to do so is negligence.
> It has every bit of information required to make these decisions. Failing to do so is negligence.
One could argue that the Ministry of State Security can and should do full surveillance of all citizens, collect all available information, including wiretapping all phones using blanket warrants, and act on it to detect and deter crime, including the crime of political opposition, at all cost, and not doing so is negligence, because it is possible and if it is possible it must be done.
>>How could they not be responsible for the adverts they run?
The whole idea is absurd to me. 20 years ago you had a marketplace section in a newspaper, you rang them and placed an ad for whatever it is you were doing or selling. Sometimes it was even free if it was short enough. It would never ever cross my mind that the newspaper should be responsible for what people post, because...why would they be? They couldn't print ads for drugs or prostitution, but neither can Facebook.
> How could they not be responsible for the adverts they run?
Except Facebook is not a political outfit (though debatable depending on who you ask) but rather, a private business. Anything they do or don't do is determined by their business interests.
Mind you,, if Facebook don't take this advertising money,, pretty sure their competitors in the ad space will be glad to fill that vacuum.
Facebook doesn't write the laws they just have to enforce them. I don't see how telling Facebook to police their platform according to the laws of the land increases their power.
In fact I'm getting fed up with the extraterritoriality of big tech.
It sounds like Facebook is running into a very controversial form of selling counterfeits. Some land is legal to sell, but some is not and it is the responsibility of the platform not to facilitate crime. In this case Facebook is failing to vet their advertisements, so it should stop offering this service until it is capable of doing so within the confines of the law.
> In this case Facebook is failing to vet their advertisements, so it should stop offering this device until it is capable of doing so within the confines of the law.
What person to person marketplace is held to this standard? Certainly not Craigslist, eBay, or Fiverr. Arguably not even Amazon.
> What person to person marketplace is held to this standard? Certainly not Craigslist
Craigslist completely nuked their personals sections because of the illegal activity on them, along with the resulting bad publicity and legislation that made it very clear what the standard is and that Craigslist needed to meet it.
They can't even be bothered to follow up on vendors dumping foreign country SKUs in the US and stomping on licensed frequencies. I got a nice letter from AT&T a couple months ago for a European SKU DECT phone from an Amazon listing that was confirmed to be the US SKU that I had purchased a few times prior. The order was even fulfilled by Amazon and they couldn't be bothered to check that the SKU on the box didn't match the product listing.
If Facebook can't even attempt to stand by the listings on their marketplace, they might as well just shut it down. It will be flooded with fake stuff & scams.
Enforcement doesn't need to be perfect, but they need to at least try some enforcement or it becomes a place where no one can trust anyone or anything.
One way to enforce a law is by making a marketplace comply. This happens all sorts of places where transactions are made. Eg. you can not sell pizza in Denmark without having the proper training.
Brazilian here: the government will say in TV it's doing its best effort to protect the forest.
However, the president is appointing farmers and non-technical people all over those entities trying to protect the forest, and they are slowly giving rights, permits, etc. to deforestation.
And sadly, despite this being tracked and advertised by TV or other news entities, very little is done to deter these criminals all over the current administration.
MAYBE international lobbying could work with Brazil, as Germany threaten to reduce the money it gives to protect the forest in 2019 (I don't remember exactly when).
And let's not forget that the Amazon forest does not end in Brazilian borders - it goes on in many countries over there. People just assume it's a Brazilian problem (I know a large portion is located in Brazil's side), but it's more a 10-country problem, not to say, a humanity problem...
One can clearly see the typical scars, especially pronounced in Rondônia. Note how deforestation suddenly stops at the borders. Now drag to see neighboring countries (at the same zoom level). They have nowhere near the problem Brazil has.
Well, those are 'tricky' regions. I don't believe that in Rondônia they will say: "what, this tree belongs to Bolívia! don't take it down, please!". It's like a mess in the that 'border'.
When Brazil stops then, and there are no more trees to take down in its side, then it will stop being a Brazilian problem?
Maybe we should act to salvage what remains instead of discussing who's fault it is. Well, as we are discussing, another 100 trees were down.
> Well, those are 'tricky' regions. I don't believe that in Rondônia they will say: "what, this tree belongs to Bolívia! don't take it down, please!".
Agree. All the more striking that it does obey borders.
> When [Brazil stops then, and] there are no more trees to take down in its side, then it will stop being a Brazilian problem?
So you think it is a problem of the world. Yet you as a brazilian feel dependent on the world to take positive action, and save the Amazon. In a way you are saying that the world must know how to do what Brazil itself does not know how to do.. Which superficially seems like a weird and unacceptable attitude to take: grow up!?
Yet I sort of agree, as I think stakeholders throughout the world should literally take ownership, buy territory and take action to preserve. Only then can they have a conversation and compete with other (purely capitalist) interests. We are those stakeholders, through the companies we work at, and capitalism (as it ravages the Amazon) is ultimately only civilized by competition.
Brazil does limit land purchase (officially land purchase) by citizens from other countries.
The country could be forced to comply or sanctioned - and that's URGENT.
It won't simply 'grow up' because the President himself was caught on tape saying things like "US and Europe destroyed their forests and became superpowers, now that it's our time (sic), they mingle in our sovereignty on deciding what to do with our own land!". He is vested on destroying it, on allowing deforestation, on putting incompetent people in key positions.
> Facebook said it was "ready to work with local authorities", but indicated it would not take independent action of its own to halt the trade.
Huh? If the ads were for firearms or child slaves, would Facebook's response also be that it was ready to work with local authorities, but would not take independent action?
So how can Facebook take this kind of flippant approach to this, but not on other items? The, not even hypocrisy, but just complete lack of fundamental human decency and respect is revolting.
What is "outright prohibited" depends entirely on jurisdiction (except maybe humans, pretty sure selling humans is banned everywhere). Person-to-person firearm sales aren't allowed on Facebook Marketplace[0] even though they are legal in much of the United States. I'm not sure why this is, but a few options come to mind... 1) it's hard to ensure that it's done legally, so Facebook doesn't even try; 2) they (the people who set policy) have some moral compunction that tells them not to; 3) firearm sales are had PR.
Their lack of action here doesn't tell me that they're in the right. It tells me that they 1) don't think this is a big enough problem to jeopardize revenue by restricting or increasing moderation for real estate listings and/or 2) they don't think they'll be held accountable, by the law or by consumers.
How do you verify proof of ownership? I have a “patta” indicating I own some land. There are only a few million people in the world who can even read the words on this document. There are only a few thousand who can understand the meaning behind those words. There are many a hundred who can verify if it’s a forgery or not. Meanwhile I doubt you can tell which part of the world it’s from based on just “patta” or looking at the document.
It’s strange that multiple people on this thread have gone with “prostitution, slavery, sales of firearms don’t happen on online marketplaces, why should this?” It’s so obvious - those are obviously illegal. Any reasonable human being taking a look at a gun sale post can tell that 1. It’s a gun and 2. Guns shouldn’t be sold here. It’s so obvious that it can be trivially automated too.
Please respond if you can verify pattas in a reasonable amount of time. Because boy do I have a business idea for you.
I see I'm in the wrong on the obviousness of the ownership of the land. I wish I had a good way to verify such things. But I don't and I am getting that no one really has.
So, because it's so hard to verify, does that than mean that it's ok to sell? Given that Brazil doesn't have a clear way of proving ownership, and people are abusing this situation and, and Facebook is making a profit of this abuse, while it's clear they're incapable of validating their statements, than I think it's reasonable to shut this service down for plots of lands in Brazil. Until either Facebook steps up their game of validating, or Brazil has a better way of proving ownership so this abuse doesn't happen. But profiting and facilitating while dodging all the blame is too easy in my opinion.
They don't have a way of verifying ownership of any other item on the marketplace either. That tablet I have for sale - did I steal it? Maybe. A thief can easily supply a forged receipt. An honest person who bought if for real might have lost their receipt. It's an intractable problem. It's not possible to verify ownership of every item there is. Should online marketplaces simply shut down then? If they are, people will get around it by making buying-selling groups. It is difficult to police behaviour that is, strictly speaking, legal.
If your suggestion was to shut down land sales in Brazil in particular because of the evident failures of the Brazilian government, yeah seems reasonable. Not like it will stop these criminals, but it's a worthwhile step to take.
You mentioned profit a couple of times. How much profit do you think the marketplace made in this case? My understanding is that listings are free.
No, I don't think all market places should shut down. This seems like an isolated problem: brazil land for sale is disputed. So, indeed I'm arguing that facebook should upend their services for this specific items untill it's been resolved.
Regarsing the profit. I can't give a specific number. But nothing is free on Facebook or Google. You pay with your data and they provide you a service in return. Facebook creates value from this data and thus creates a profit. It's rather straightforward and not something I should have to explain on HN
It’s not an isolated problem to Brazilian land. Practically every item on any marketplace has some possibility of being stolen, or in the case of luxury/fashion goods, counterfeit.
These lands are usually owned by "agreement" within the "gangs" that are holding or controlling them. It happens a lot where I live until the government cracks down and everyone loses "his" land.
The reality is that they are doing temporary activity on the land (like raising cattle) and so if the government cracked down, they'll just take their cows and move on to the next land. The purchase price is too low and that makes it profitable.
At the very least one of the transactions from the article was just some random middle class guy selling land he's never owned, not some organised criminals demanding protection money.
I put "gang" because these are usually not armed gangs but rather regular dudes who have "claims" to these lands. There is a bit of power play here, otherwise the buyer will just go ahead and claim the lot.
I think this highlights how ridiculous it is to expect Facebook to enforce laws. For a given plot of land in the Amazon, how is Facebook going to know the title history of that land. If you have ever paid a title company in the US for a search you know that process takes weeks and theres a much better paper trail here then for some little plot the heart of the Amazon.
I'm guessing FB doesn't care either way and would be happy to comply to remove a listing once a Brazilian court determines that a sale is illegal but we don't want Facebook being a defacto Brazilian court.
I lived in Brazil's capital, Brasília, for many years. Illegal land grabs were very, very common there. This wasn't in the jungle. This was a modern city, and there were as many middle class and upper middle class land grabbers as poor ones. This infuriated me. Since the upper middle class neighborhoods were becoming too expensive to buy into, rich people simply invaded protected land and started building there. Or owners of large farmland transformed the land into urban plots and sold the plots illegally, mostly to rich middle and upper middle class people. And everyone knew it was illegal. Everyone. Still to this day, a decade later, I still know people who have very nice homes in very nice neighborhoods, and they still don't have an official, legal land title. They have some semi-bogus, semi-official 'land use' sort of document, and they can't legalize it, and it is all a complicated legal mess, but hey, they got to buy very cheap land and live the middle class dream, right? Who cares if it was illegal, who cares if it the land was supposed to be preserved. And these are the same people who complain that we have corrupt politicians. Really, these are the same people. Everyone in Brazil blames our problems on corrupt politicians, but everyone pulls this kind of 'semi-legal' crap. That's why Brazil sucks. Too bad it's very, very good also.
This article is a bit sensational: it doesn't mention these plots are being sold via any craigslist type of service, not just facebook.
I have seen another listing service push back a little against such postings, but given the ample space between the law and illegality, it is hard for them to identify semi-legitimate postings from illegitimate ones.
That space exists, because the transfer of property came with excessive taxes, procedures and costs the poor could not or didn't want to afford. So children inherited the property but not formally. Then they would sell their rights to the property rights. And so on. The "cartórios" (registration offices) register these contracts instead. The property itself slides into informality. In the end the government itself is to blame.
The state of Rondônia is highlighted in the article. Makes sense, as it has been almost fully and industrially deforested in the last 20 years. Open up Google Earth and slide it back in time. You'll see deforestation leaving scars on an enormous scale, with obvious corruption of the state government.
> given the ample space between the law and illegality, it is hard for them to identify semi-legitimate postings from illegitimate ones.
Would it be so wrong for such a company to take a moral stance and just say no to sale of any land part of the Amazon forest regardless of local legality?
What I'd really like is for the businesses we work at to get serious about their commitment to the environment (instead of doing token commitments). In particular they could invest or participate in a fund or estate, on our behalf, which would take the forest out of its current status of unclaimed territory. Facebook alone could likely buy a significant chunk of the Amazon.
Instead we'd want it to only point the finger, also on our behalf? I'm sure Facebook would actually love to be required to police and to eventually govern us. It will misconstrue that we wanted it to.
Let's work with each other, not against each other. A cry for more control and repression won't bring a smile to anyone's face.
Background on the Amazon plots: perverse capitalistic incentives drive this "real estate development". Which are typically white-washed by the current president.
For anyone supporting Facebook, I am also on the fence but please consider this:
Facebook and any similar Internet based vehicle (I use this term instead of marketplace, eCommerce, forum, etc. just to generalize) allows sellers* and buyers to reach each other in ways and over distances that were not possible.
This is the effect and gift of the Internet and I am aware of this personally. But, even if individual sellers* or buyers can not be expected to keep up with policies or strict checking, Facebook or any other major, multi-billion $ Internet vehicle has the responsibility since they are pushing their platforms to these people around the world.
Just take a moment to think - Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft, Apple, Google, Uber, AirBnB... are all products from a tiny corner of* the planet and have immense impact on how business and communication occurs across the globe. The impact of negligence might be a lot worse that what the managers sitting in the HQ might understand.
We all have a responsibility, yes. But the Internet giants have more means to do what is needed. They run the business to solely monetize and they are aware of loopholes. They are not naive. Unless citizens of the Internet ask, this will not change.
So corrupt local baron uses Facebook to illegally sell and protect the buyer that does an illegal deforestation of sold area? And this is Facebook problem...how? Sounds like anyone who is a medium for ads can and will host this type of ads.
I am pretty sure I can do the same on Washington Post, should I've be such a local baron.
Comparing it to human slavery and other illegal things and saying Facebook would remove that so why not this.
In reality a lot of Brazil runs off selling land not based on documentation, which is technically illegal, but it's also peoples entire lives, the shack they built on a hill is theirs and for Facebook to remove the right to sell that is not a small thing.
I saw entire Teak/Hardwood plantations for sale on E-Bay in Nicaragua or some other central American country. Not sure if they’re still on there. They were like 800k+.
These busybodies want a democracy and big government, but FB should fix its consequences (a corrupt government and issues with "public ownership"). And they'd better do it for free or else, right?
I was wondering what the trick is, as selling a place without holding its title may not command a very high price, even if you clear it and make it ready for business - for cattle ranching in the case of the rainforest.
Turns out it's similar to the concept of adverse occupation:
> Another factor driving the illegal land market is the expectation of amnesty.
> Mr Alves revealed he was working with others to lobby politicians to help them legally own stolen land.
> A common strategy is to deforest the land and then plead with politicians to abolish its protected status, on the basis it no longer serves its original purpose.
> The land grabbers can then officially buy the plots from the government, thereby legalising their claims.
If the government didn't do that, it wouldn't happen! It's a system of wrong incentives: the executive and the judiciary should be as separate as possible!
> For its part, Facebook claims trying to deduce which sales are illegal would be too complex a task for it to carry out itself, and should be left to the local judiciary and other authorities
If property rights were more clearly defined, it wouldn't happen either.
I see that as a compelling case for defining property rights outside of the government greasy finger reach - maybe a blockchain based register, so land grab attempts clearly stand out, and can be used in name and shame of the land thieves.
You don't call anyone. You just publish their picture, name, phone number, and address.
If they have done nothing wrong acquiring plots of jungle, they certainly have nothing to fear!!
On the other hand, if the blockchain can show conclusively some ex-post reassignment of property rights, and whose corrupt official were responsible, maybe some heads will roll (and I mean that quite literally in South America!)
This seems obviously wrong.
It is not illegal to sell land. A moderator would need to delve into Brazilian law and mapping to determine if that specific sale was illegal.
Expecting marketplaces to police peer to peer transactions in depth is unreasonable.
We are currently focussed on the verification of electronic products. But our goal is to verify listings in all verticals with a high risk of fraud.
Just a few first google hits: FOSTA/SESTA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Enabling_Sex_Traffickers_...
Prosecuting dark net markets using 'crack house law': https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=56...
They don't need to be perfect. A rough solution would not require a full and complete legal analysis of Brazil's laws and topography. However their current stance seems to be that they won't even bother trying.
This also seems wrong.
The right solution is in the middle: Facebook should spend some effort validating the legality of the sale. The required standard of effort should depend on how much money Facebook is making from the ads, and on an estimate of the proportion of products sold illegally, amongst other things. The former to ensure that a very small similar website is not held to the same standard, the latter to ensure that if 99% of the products are sold illegally then Facebook is responsible.
Without knowing the total volume of these land ads and the proportion of illegal ones, it is hard to tell if there is anything to fix here.
Facilitating the sale of a stolen phone is not going to be as harmful as facilitating, say, adulterated nutrition supplements.
This dovetails nicely with the full-on terrible and illegal side of things. There are likely not many ads for human trafficking on Facebook, but they are so horrendous that it is still worth expending significant effort to detect and remove them.
And while not comparable to the above situation, I would argue illegal Amazon land deals ads are causing an outsized harm compared to ads for similarly mundane-sounding illegal goods/service/whatever. They deserve special attention.
How is this different than someone selling the Brooklyn bridge on Craigslist?
Facebook marketplace just links buyers and sellers. Settlement is something else.
Why is everyone so intent on Facebook/Twitter/whatever being the arbiter of truth? These problems aren't new to any of the new tech.
Using the same logic of enforcing marketplace, there needs to be an observer for every private conversation on messenger so that no illegal pictures are sent.
You gotta be kidding me. Facebook is a multi-billion dollar corporation. Just make them do it. Their legal departments will figure it out. They'll probably do it even faster than the brazilian authorities too. Google once fed brazilian judges this exact same excuse after being ordered to take down content. They got told to figure out a way to comply since surely Google has the capability to do it. As far as I know, they did.
How many problems would be fixed if we stopped feeling sorry for the rich corporations and started requiring them to assume responsibility for the messes they create?
> How many problems would be fixed if we stopped feeling sorry for the rich corporations and started requiring them to assume responsibility for the messes they create?
Instead of "problems would be fixed", it would be "how many more problems would be created".
- USPS should assume responsibility for scam mails since they help deliver them. Laws would be created to require USPS to "screen" all mails and refuse to deliver if it deems the mails are spam. After all, it's USPS "greed" to allow those spammers/scammers to send mail.
- Telcos should assume responsibility for telephone frauds. Breaking News: Costco got hacked via telephone social engineering, T-Mobile is being sued. After all, it's the Telcos's "greed" to allow those scammers to make the phone call. They should have an army of operators listening to the phone call and stop the fraud before it happens.
The worst outcome? By "stopped feeling sorry for the rich corporations", we are actually pushing to give them even more power, over our live.
- By asking Facebook to police what is legal, we're handing them the right to decide what's right/wrong. At the same time, it creates even more regulatory captures, discouraging upstart alternatives to join the ring.
The emotionally charged call might appeal to the popular us-vs-them, rich-vs-poor climate, but if we're not careful, it might lead us to the wrong solution.
It's actually illegal to tamper with mail or wiretap phones without a warrant. The post office and telecommunications companies can't know what is going on. Same logic applies to networks and it's actually enforced via encryption. Facebook has complete knowledge of everything. It has every bit of information required to make these decisions. Failing to do so is negligence.
One could argue that the Ministry of State Security can and should do full surveillance of all citizens, collect all available information, including wiretapping all phones using blanket warrants, and act on it to detect and deter crime, including the crime of political opposition, at all cost, and not doing so is negligence, because it is possible and if it is possible it must be done.
The whole idea is absurd to me. 20 years ago you had a marketplace section in a newspaper, you rang them and placed an ad for whatever it is you were doing or selling. Sometimes it was even free if it was short enough. It would never ever cross my mind that the newspaper should be responsible for what people post, because...why would they be? They couldn't print ads for drugs or prostitution, but neither can Facebook.
Except Facebook is not a political outfit (though debatable depending on who you ask) but rather, a private business. Anything they do or don't do is determined by their business interests.
Mind you,, if Facebook don't take this advertising money,, pretty sure their competitors in the ad space will be glad to fill that vacuum.
In fact I'm getting fed up with the extraterritoriality of big tech.
And then there's no site that can ever compete with their ability to do the compliance department bullshit.
That's how the world ended up with two banks. Is this how you really want to play it?
What person to person marketplace is held to this standard? Certainly not Craigslist, eBay, or Fiverr. Arguably not even Amazon.
Craigslist completely nuked their personals sections because of the illegal activity on them, along with the resulting bad publicity and legislation that made it very clear what the standard is and that Craigslist needed to meet it.
They can't even be bothered to follow up on vendors dumping foreign country SKUs in the US and stomping on licensed frequencies. I got a nice letter from AT&T a couple months ago for a European SKU DECT phone from an Amazon listing that was confirmed to be the US SKU that I had purchased a few times prior. The order was even fulfilled by Amazon and they couldn't be bothered to check that the SKU on the box didn't match the product listing.
Enforcement doesn't need to be perfect, but they need to at least try some enforcement or it becomes a place where no one can trust anyone or anything.
Because Facebook is making money directly off those ads.
However, the president is appointing farmers and non-technical people all over those entities trying to protect the forest, and they are slowly giving rights, permits, etc. to deforestation.
And sadly, despite this being tracked and advertised by TV or other news entities, very little is done to deter these criminals all over the current administration.
MAYBE international lobbying could work with Brazil, as Germany threaten to reduce the money it gives to protect the forest in 2019 (I don't remember exactly when).
And let's not forget that the Amazon forest does not end in Brazilian borders - it goes on in many countries over there. People just assume it's a Brazilian problem (I know a large portion is located in Brazil's side), but it's more a 10-country problem, not to say, a humanity problem...
Sadly I must disagree. Take a look at this satellite view: https://www.google.com/maps/@-11.4130559,-63.0321741,1330178...
One can clearly see the typical scars, especially pronounced in Rondônia. Note how deforestation suddenly stops at the borders. Now drag to see neighboring countries (at the same zoom level). They have nowhere near the problem Brazil has.
When Brazil stops then, and there are no more trees to take down in its side, then it will stop being a Brazilian problem?
Maybe we should act to salvage what remains instead of discussing who's fault it is. Well, as we are discussing, another 100 trees were down.
Agree. All the more striking that it does obey borders.
> When [Brazil stops then, and] there are no more trees to take down in its side, then it will stop being a Brazilian problem?
So you think it is a problem of the world. Yet you as a brazilian feel dependent on the world to take positive action, and save the Amazon. In a way you are saying that the world must know how to do what Brazil itself does not know how to do.. Which superficially seems like a weird and unacceptable attitude to take: grow up!?
Yet I sort of agree, as I think stakeholders throughout the world should literally take ownership, buy territory and take action to preserve. Only then can they have a conversation and compete with other (purely capitalist) interests. We are those stakeholders, through the companies we work at, and capitalism (as it ravages the Amazon) is ultimately only civilized by competition.
The country could be forced to comply or sanctioned - and that's URGENT.
It won't simply 'grow up' because the President himself was caught on tape saying things like "US and Europe destroyed their forests and became superpowers, now that it's our time (sic), they mingle in our sovereignty on deciding what to do with our own land!". He is vested on destroying it, on allowing deforestation, on putting incompetent people in key positions.
And please, don't believe everything Google feeds you...
Huh? If the ads were for firearms or child slaves, would Facebook's response also be that it was ready to work with local authorities, but would not take independent action?
So how can Facebook take this kind of flippant approach to this, but not on other items? The, not even hypocrisy, but just complete lack of fundamental human decency and respect is revolting.
You don't need to figure out whether it is an illegal or legal child sale as all child selling is illegal. Selling land in itself is not illegal.
Their lack of action here doesn't tell me that they're in the right. It tells me that they 1) don't think this is a big enough problem to jeopardize revenue by restricting or increasing moderation for real estate listings and/or 2) they don't think they'll be held accountable, by the law or by consumers.
https://m.facebook.com/help/179037502478035?helpref=uf_perma...
Do you have a reference for this? Especially guns?
It’s strange that multiple people on this thread have gone with “prostitution, slavery, sales of firearms don’t happen on online marketplaces, why should this?” It’s so obvious - those are obviously illegal. Any reasonable human being taking a look at a gun sale post can tell that 1. It’s a gun and 2. Guns shouldn’t be sold here. It’s so obvious that it can be trivially automated too.
Please respond if you can verify pattas in a reasonable amount of time. Because boy do I have a business idea for you.
If your suggestion was to shut down land sales in Brazil in particular because of the evident failures of the Brazilian government, yeah seems reasonable. Not like it will stop these criminals, but it's a worthwhile step to take.
You mentioned profit a couple of times. How much profit do you think the marketplace made in this case? My understanding is that listings are free.
Regarsing the profit. I can't give a specific number. But nothing is free on Facebook or Google. You pay with your data and they provide you a service in return. Facebook creates value from this data and thus creates a profit. It's rather straightforward and not something I should have to explain on HN
In which case, what are they even selling? Who would buy? Even if you "buy", aren't you then still illegally occupying land?
The reality is that they are doing temporary activity on the land (like raising cattle) and so if the government cracked down, they'll just take their cows and move on to the next land. The purchase price is too low and that makes it profitable.
I'm guessing FB doesn't care either way and would be happy to comply to remove a listing once a Brazilian court determines that a sale is illegal but we don't want Facebook being a defacto Brazilian court.
I have seen another listing service push back a little against such postings, but given the ample space between the law and illegality, it is hard for them to identify semi-legitimate postings from illegitimate ones.
That space exists, because the transfer of property came with excessive taxes, procedures and costs the poor could not or didn't want to afford. So children inherited the property but not formally. Then they would sell their rights to the property rights. And so on. The "cartórios" (registration offices) register these contracts instead. The property itself slides into informality. In the end the government itself is to blame.
Would it be so wrong for such a company to take a moral stance and just say no to sale of any land part of the Amazon forest regardless of local legality?
Instead we'd want it to only point the finger, also on our behalf? I'm sure Facebook would actually love to be required to police and to eventually govern us. It will misconstrue that we wanted it to.
Let's work with each other, not against each other. A cry for more control and repression won't bring a smile to anyone's face.
Facebook and any similar Internet based vehicle (I use this term instead of marketplace, eCommerce, forum, etc. just to generalize) allows sellers* and buyers to reach each other in ways and over distances that were not possible.
This is the effect and gift of the Internet and I am aware of this personally. But, even if individual sellers* or buyers can not be expected to keep up with policies or strict checking, Facebook or any other major, multi-billion $ Internet vehicle has the responsibility since they are pushing their platforms to these people around the world.
Just take a moment to think - Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft, Apple, Google, Uber, AirBnB... are all products from a tiny corner of* the planet and have immense impact on how business and communication occurs across the globe. The impact of negligence might be a lot worse that what the managers sitting in the HQ might understand.
We all have a responsibility, yes. But the Internet giants have more means to do what is needed. They run the business to solely monetize and they are aware of loopholes. They are not naive. Unless citizens of the Internet ask, this will not change.
* Typo fixes
I am pretty sure I can do the same on Washington Post, should I've be such a local baron.
Rain in the southeast and central-west regions depend a lot on the Amazon.
https://www.facebook.com/marketplace/manaus/propertyforsale
I guess 50 million people living in real poverty is just a statistic.
For all the illegal comments, these dirt poor people living in slums are also living illegally. They probably have no formal property documentation.
In reality a lot of Brazil runs off selling land not based on documentation, which is technically illegal, but it's also peoples entire lives, the shack they built on a hill is theirs and for Facebook to remove the right to sell that is not a small thing.
"Brazil slum dwellers shun home ownership, fearing gentrification" - https://www.reuters.com/article/us-brazil-landrights-ngo-idU...
I don’t think they were in the rainforest though
Turns out it's similar to the concept of adverse occupation:
> Another factor driving the illegal land market is the expectation of amnesty.
> Mr Alves revealed he was working with others to lobby politicians to help them legally own stolen land.
> A common strategy is to deforest the land and then plead with politicians to abolish its protected status, on the basis it no longer serves its original purpose.
> The land grabbers can then officially buy the plots from the government, thereby legalising their claims.
If the government didn't do that, it wouldn't happen! It's a system of wrong incentives: the executive and the judiciary should be as separate as possible!
> For its part, Facebook claims trying to deduce which sales are illegal would be too complex a task for it to carry out itself, and should be left to the local judiciary and other authorities
If property rights were more clearly defined, it wouldn't happen either.
I see that as a compelling case for defining property rights outside of the government greasy finger reach - maybe a blockchain based register, so land grab attempts clearly stand out, and can be used in name and shame of the land thieves.
Is geofencing the protected natural reserves is too much to ask?
"name and shame of the land thieves."
Huh? In Russia that doesn't help one bit, I can't imagine it would in Brazil.
If they have done nothing wrong acquiring plots of jungle, they certainly have nothing to fear!!
On the other hand, if the blockchain can show conclusively some ex-post reassignment of property rights, and whose corrupt official were responsible, maybe some heads will roll (and I mean that quite literally in South America!)