6 ms·

Not to mention that people are biased and cannot be trusted to moderate ethically.

aldoushuxley001 7y ago
Yeah it seems the best solutions simply involve users flagging content themselves and being able to see what other people have reported regarding other content
- greglindahl 7y ago
  Yep. No chance that brigading will result. Also, how good are kids at evaluating what other people have reported?
  - aldoushuxley001 7y ago
    Hackernews literally operates on this premise as well. Flagging is a very common feature. Crowdsourcing this is actually a very effective tactic. Also, you'd be surprised how smart kids are if you give them the chance, have the right UI, etc. I'm actually surprised the HN community seems to look down on crowdsourcing these efforts, kinda humorous.
    - big_chungus 7y ago
      No, Hacker News has a very different demographic than most other sites. I'm not saying flagging isn't a viable model, but it's also not reasonable to pretend it's going to work as well.
tremon 7y ago
Whereas an algorithm can be trusted to moderate ethically? This is why civilized countries have developed rule of law, including arguments and rebuttals, overseen by an impartial arbiter. Yes, that is costly. But it is the accepted solution we have as a society, and it's time "Big Tech" starts accepting rule of law.
- big_chungus 7y ago
  > it's time "Big Tech" starts accepting rule of law. Which laws? I will acknowledge they are gaming the system somewhat by claiming to be an impartial platform (thereby gaining copyright protections) while removing what they find distasteful (but not illegal, so moderation based on opinion). However, it sounds like you believe removing videos that are not illegal in and of themselves is itself illegal. We don't have a law prohibiting that, so I'm not sure to what you are referring. Protecting speech also means protecting the right not to speak.
  - tremon 7y ago
    I'm not referring to "gaming the system", I'm referring to the refusal to hand over appeals to an independent third party, or in some cases flatly refusing appeals. The contentid, moderation and banning decisions should be subject to public scrutiny, they shouldn't be the unassailable result of a backroom process. it sounds like you believe removing videos that are not illegal in and of themselves is itself illegal. It's not even on my radar. I'm concerned with the transparency and consistency of the process, not the outcome of individual decisions.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - Nasrudith 7y ago
      That really isn't rule of law then. While a transparent system would be nice it has about as much to do with rule of law as people playing catch with a glove and baseball instead of a formal game does.
- manfredo 7y ago
  There's nothing in the rule of law that says platforms need to be places with arguments and rebuttals overseen by an arbiter. There's nothing against the law about having a platform filled with petulant children. For the most part, the only things against the law are illegal content (CSE, etc.) and credible and specific threats. Plus maybe some niche cases like providing aid to terrorist groups, distributing confidential documents, and the like. Yes, tech companies should accept the rule of law. But people need to accept that the rule of law does not preclude running a site full of angry, bigoted idiots with no productive commentary.

Yeah it seems the best solutions simply involve users flagging content themselves and being able to see what other people have reported regarding other content

greglindahl 7y ago
Yep. No chance that brigading will result. Also, how good are kids at evaluating what other people have reported?
- aldoushuxley001 7y ago
  Hackernews literally operates on this premise as well. Flagging is a very common feature. Crowdsourcing this is actually a very effective tactic. Also, you'd be surprised how smart kids are if you give them the chance, have the right UI, etc. I'm actually surprised the HN community seems to look down on crowdsourcing these efforts, kinda humorous.
  - big_chungus 7y ago
    No, Hacker News has a very different demographic than most other sites. I'm not saying flagging isn't a viable model, but it's also not reasonable to pretend it's going to work as well.

tremon 7y ago

Whereas an algorithm can be trusted to moderate ethically? This is why civilized countries have developed rule of law, including arguments and rebuttals, overseen by an impartial arbiter. Yes, that is costly. But it is the accepted solution we have as a society, and it's time "Big Tech" starts accepting rule of law.

big_chungus 7y ago
> it's time "Big Tech" starts accepting rule of law. Which laws? I will acknowledge they are gaming the system somewhat by claiming to be an impartial platform (thereby gaining copyright protections) while removing what they find distasteful (but not illegal, so moderation based on opinion). However, it sounds like you believe removing videos that are not illegal in and of themselves is itself illegal. We don't have a law prohibiting that, so I'm not sure to what you are referring. Protecting speech also means protecting the right not to speak.
- tremon 7y ago
  I'm not referring to "gaming the system", I'm referring to the refusal to hand over appeals to an independent third party, or in some cases flatly refusing appeals. The contentid, moderation and banning decisions should be subject to public scrutiny, they shouldn't be the unassailable result of a backroom process. it sounds like you believe removing videos that are not illegal in and of themselves is itself illegal. It's not even on my radar. I'm concerned with the transparency and consistency of the process, not the outcome of individual decisions.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - Nasrudith 7y ago
    That really isn't rule of law then. While a transparent system would be nice it has about as much to do with rule of law as people playing catch with a glove and baseball instead of a formal game does.
manfredo 7y ago
There's nothing in the rule of law that says platforms need to be places with arguments and rebuttals overseen by an arbiter. There's nothing against the law about having a platform filled with petulant children. For the most part, the only things against the law are illegal content (CSE, etc.) and credible and specific threats. Plus maybe some niche cases like providing aid to terrorist groups, distributing confidential documents, and the like. Yes, tech companies should accept the rule of law. But people need to accept that the rule of law does not preclude running a site full of angry, bigoted idiots with no productive commentary.