4 ms·
What worries me is how these gatekeepers will be chosen. Will there be criteria that makes sure they aren't just applying their own biases? Will they come from
by malandrew 10y ago
What worries me is how these gatekeepers will be chosen. Will there be criteria that makes sure they aren't just applying their own biases? Will they come from all sides of the political spectrum, or will one political leaning be better represented? Will political content be reviewed by more than one reviewer?
- matt4077 10y agoI can't find it anymore, but there was a leaked pdf of their review guidelines. It was about 50 powerpoint slides and it's certainly more specific than "delete what you don't like". They had quite a few examples, usually in pairs (one to delete, one not to) to highlight the demarcation. I seem to remember stuff like "Sean Connery is stupid" (allowed) vs. "Sean Connery is stupid, like all scots" (delete, because it insults him based on his nationality). (Not sure about the specific example–"stupid" may be too weak an insult) They also devoted a surprising amount of pages for when to delete pictures of people urinating. Must be a much bigger problem than I would have thought.
- anigbrowl 10y agoRandomly. They'll just be the content janitors, and I doubt they will be subjected to anything more than the most rudimentary ethical screening or training. I won't be a bit surprised if there's a systematic effort to encourage applications from within socially conservative entities such as religious groups, and going to be carefully monitoring their corner of the web for such.
- usrusr 10y agoBiased "junior level inquisitors" might not be all that bad as long as they represent a spectrum of biases and are reliably kept from specializing on opinion bubbles relevant to their personal bias. In any case, Facebook would be well advised to put some greying neckbeards in charge who remember everything about /. metamoderation.