3 ms·
The problem is that it's also possible to criticize in a way where it's simply not possible to determine if it was a good faith criticism or not. There's a wide
by Nuzzerino 7y ago
The problem is that it's also possible to criticize in a way where it's simply not possible to determine if it was a good faith criticism or not. There's a wide population of people who even optimize for that, they're called trolls.
Moderation mistakes are inevitable, and the consequences of a bad moderation decision can be as bad, or worse, than the effect of the message itself.
IMO, people should learn to defend themselves against trolls rather than helplessly relying on a nanny from above to do it. Unfortunately, using those platforms doesn't give us much of a choice in the matter.
- dragonwriter 7y ago> The problem is that it's also possible to criticize in a way where it's simply not possible to determine if it was a good faith criticism or not. That's a problem in some generic sense perhaps, but not with the application of this policy, which does not rely on a determination of “good faith criticism”, but instead of dehumanization. Note that the examples of what is covered all are dehumanizing in a very narrow sense (stating directly that the target groups are vermin, viruses, etc.): https://blog.twitter.com/content/dam/blog-twitter/official/en_us/company/2019/dehumanizationreligion.png https://blog.twitter.com/content/dam/blog-twitter/official/e...
- Nuzzerino 7y agoI'd rather see a random list of posts that are actually being deleted rather than examples that Twitter officially uses, before making the determination that the rule is applied fairly.