5 ms·

I would think its worth trying out something even if the result is less than perfect.

by ksk 9y ago

dymk 9y ago
So you're falling into (3) and ignoring how important (1) is
- ksk 9y ago
  Um, the person simply defined a problem into existence. There is no agreed upon basis of thinking like this.
  - sanderjd 9y ago
    But you haven't attempted to refute the well-described basis of that problem statement. Which parts do you think are wrong?
    - ksk 9y ago
      I personally don't find it well described, or useful. I chose to engage the commentator in a way that brought us both to a common ground position.
      - sanderjd 9y ago
        > I chose to engage the commentator in a way that brought us both to a common ground position. Where? I don't see any more comments from you in this thread...
  - skinnymuch 9y ago
    Yes they did. So what do you find wrong with their first point or any others? And that might make your suggestion better?
    - SomeStupidPoint 9y ago
      Not that person, but I objected to: 0 -- The outrage caused by misidentified profiles is larger than the outrage or societal damage caused by the existence of fake profiles. ...which was an unstated assumption underpinning why that entire argument would be an objection to implementing account review, and in my estimation is incredibly incorrect. They're being forced into Senate hearings over the false profiles, constantly being harassed by merchants about possible ad fraud over them, and are losing the trust of their communities. By contrast, the storm in a teacup over a few misidentifications is nothing to Facebook. (There's numerous other unstated, highly subjective assumptions as well.) I also object to: 1 -- This is true, but irrelevant. Facebook cares about the rates of outrage in communities, not the mere existence. Ironically, this person seems to have fallen into the trap they called out, by thinking Facebook cared about instances of outrage (as the poster would). They also care about the relative outrage -- how mad are people compared to another option we can try. This point very poorly frames the problem as being about trying to stop any outrage instead of trying to minimize outrage. 4 -- This is community specific and untrue of the bulk of people. Decreasing error increases the vitriol involved, but it seems to come from a decreasing number of people as the outrage evaporates in the face of better error rates. So I think they're outright wrong here: it's like water cooling as it evaporates. The water is going away, even though it's cooler in the area. 5 -- This one becomes irrelevant (and/or wrong) if you correct the mistakes in 1 and 4. Overall, this argument is -- a) irrelevant because even if it was correct, it wouldn't matter as it fails to contextualize its point by comparing levels of outrage between sources b) wrong internally, in that it's largely irrelevant to the problem at hand or just outright wrong.
      - nerfhammer 9y ago
        If you constrain the issue to just fake accounts that's quite a bit easier, everyone agrees about the difference between a bot and a person at least in principle. Versus all forms of possible content moderation, e.g. should youtube ban Alex Jones. And I'm not sure that the total outrage level will ever decrease the more responsibility for moderation they are seen as having.

I would think its worth trying out something even if the result is less than perfect.

by ksk 9y ago

I would think its worth trying out something even if the result is less than perfect.

dymk 9y ago

So you're falling into (3) and ignoring how important (1) is

ksk 9y ago
Um, the person simply defined a problem into existence. There is no agreed upon basis of thinking like this.
- sanderjd 9y ago
  But you haven't attempted to refute the well-described basis of that problem statement. Which parts do you think are wrong?
  - ksk 9y ago
    I personally don't find it well described, or useful. I chose to engage the commentator in a way that brought us both to a common ground position.
    - sanderjd 9y ago
      > I chose to engage the commentator in a way that brought us both to a common ground position. Where? I don't see any more comments from you in this thread...
- skinnymuch 9y ago
  Yes they did. So what do you find wrong with their first point or any others? And that might make your suggestion better?
  - SomeStupidPoint 9y ago
    Not that person, but I objected to: 0 -- The outrage caused by misidentified profiles is larger than the outrage or societal damage caused by the existence of fake profiles. ...which was an unstated assumption underpinning why that entire argument would be an objection to implementing account review, and in my estimation is incredibly incorrect. They're being forced into Senate hearings over the false profiles, constantly being harassed by merchants about possible ad fraud over them, and are losing the trust of their communities. By contrast, the storm in a teacup over a few misidentifications is nothing to Facebook. (There's numerous other unstated, highly subjective assumptions as well.) I also object to: 1 -- This is true, but irrelevant. Facebook cares about the rates of outrage in communities, not the mere existence. Ironically, this person seems to have fallen into the trap they called out, by thinking Facebook cared about instances of outrage (as the poster would). They also care about the relative outrage -- how mad are people compared to another option we can try. This point very poorly frames the problem as being about trying to stop any outrage instead of trying to minimize outrage. 4 -- This is community specific and untrue of the bulk of people. Decreasing error increases the vitriol involved, but it seems to come from a decreasing number of people as the outrage evaporates in the face of better error rates. So I think they're outright wrong here: it's like water cooling as it evaporates. The water is going away, even though it's cooler in the area. 5 -- This one becomes irrelevant (and/or wrong) if you correct the mistakes in 1 and 4. Overall, this argument is -- a) irrelevant because even if it was correct, it wouldn't matter as it fails to contextualize its point by comparing levels of outrage between sources b) wrong internally, in that it's largely irrelevant to the problem at hand or just outright wrong.
    - nerfhammer 9y ago
      If you constrain the issue to just fake accounts that's quite a bit easier, everyone agrees about the difference between a bot and a person at least in principle. Versus all forms of possible content moderation, e.g. should youtube ban Alex Jones. And I'm not sure that the total outrage level will ever decrease the more responsibility for moderation they are seen as having.