4 ms·

In order to prevent virality on WeChat, they impose a 100 share limit before limiting new shares to invites-only and only for people who have a linked mobile nu

In order to prevent virality on WeChat, they impose a 100 share limit before limiting new shares to invites-only and only for people who have a linked mobile number. What this effectively means is that if WeChat detects a 'viral-event', anonymity can be squashed and those responsible for causing the viral-event can be identified and I suppose questioned at a later date on whether they are anti-government or simply rabble-rousers. Is this what you mean by wanting to have social media limits? That the government can step in and say, "Ma'am, you've shared enough, what's going on here, you're going to need a permit for this discussion" ?

bcoates 8y ago
It's just a painfully dumb metaphor, don't overthink it.
JoeAltmaier 8y ago
Well, its not a discussion after hundreds of strangers have been pulled in. Its more of a mob? Its disingenuous to talk about free speech on the web, deliberately ignoring how virality is a new thing and its not working out well to ignore what it can do
fooker 8y ago
Limiting to 100 is still a large exponential. In just 5 'levels' of share, it can reach about 300 million people.
- spiznnx 8y ago
  I think 100 refers to total 100 shares of an original story, not 100 levels of share. (Example: You can hit 100 shares in 2 levels of share. You have 100 friends share your story, each share reaches their 100 friends. That's only 10,000 people)
inetknght 8y ago
> Is this what you mean by wanting to have social media limits? I wasn't advocating for social media limits. Rather, I was trying to present one method of limiting and contrast with difficulties of enforcing it. How, then, can you "ban" misinformation if the person spreading a link doesn't realize it was incorrect? How can you prevent that same mechanism from censoring satire? How can you prevent that same mechanism from censoring honest opinions rather than facts? How can you prevent that same mechanism from censoring discussions?
- genericone 8y ago
  Ah, I apologize, I attributed semi-advocacy where there was more like devil's-advocacy, and its too late for me to edit my post. Maybe you don't ban anything at all? Maybe above an item that meets viral criteria (or as a click-thru to the post to increase content friction), a viral-disclaimer is put front and center: "This information has not yet been verified but our algorithms have detected that many organizations and individuals have been sharing this". Don't ban, just discourage via technical means? Like how many companies use the dark-pattern of making it unbearable, but not impossible, to go through the process of unsubscribing or cancelling an account. Whenever anomalous unsourced information appears to be spreading, just increase the consumption friction. Make viral-response a controls problem. If that sounds like a typical engineer response, yeah, sorry, not sorry. You want the viral response to be critically damped, some arbitrary compromise between stifling information flow and having a situation like in India where some remote villagers killed traveling strangers for being in the wrong place at the wrong time during a viral WhatsApp misinformation situation about child-kidnappings. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-44856910 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-44856910

bcoates 8y ago

It's just a painfully dumb metaphor, don't overthink it.

JoeAltmaier 8y ago

Well, its not a discussion after hundreds of strangers have been pulled in. Its more of a mob? Its disingenuous to talk about free speech on the web, deliberately ignoring how virality is a new thing and its not working out well to ignore what it can do

fooker 8y ago

Limiting to 100 is still a large exponential. In just 5 'levels' of share, it can reach about 300 million people.

spiznnx 8y ago
I think 100 refers to total 100 shares of an original story, not 100 levels of share. (Example: You can hit 100 shares in 2 levels of share. You have 100 friends share your story, each share reaches their 100 friends. That's only 10,000 people)

inetknght 8y ago

> Is this what you mean by wanting to have social media limits? I wasn't advocating for social media limits. Rather, I was trying to present one method of limiting and contrast with difficulties of enforcing it. How, then, can you "ban" misinformation if the person spreading a link doesn't realize it was incorrect? How can you prevent that same mechanism from censoring satire? How can you prevent that same mechanism from censoring honest opinions rather than facts? How can you prevent that same mechanism from censoring discussions?

genericone 8y ago
Ah, I apologize, I attributed semi-advocacy where there was more like devil's-advocacy, and its too late for me to edit my post. Maybe you don't ban anything at all? Maybe above an item that meets viral criteria (or as a click-thru to the post to increase content friction), a viral-disclaimer is put front and center: "This information has not yet been verified but our algorithms have detected that many organizations and individuals have been sharing this". Don't ban, just discourage via technical means? Like how many companies use the dark-pattern of making it unbearable, but not impossible, to go through the process of unsubscribing or cancelling an account. Whenever anomalous unsourced information appears to be spreading, just increase the consumption friction. Make viral-response a controls problem. If that sounds like a typical engineer response, yeah, sorry, not sorry. You want the viral response to be critically damped, some arbitrary compromise between stifling information flow and having a situation like in India where some remote villagers killed traveling strangers for being in the wrong place at the wrong time during a viral WhatsApp misinformation situation about child-kidnappings. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-44856910 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-44856910