3 ms·
The main difference seem to be that Facebook's moderation is done after the fact, while these sites place content in a moderation queue before making them visib
by hliyan 7y ago
The main difference seem to be that Facebook's moderation is done after the fact, while these sites place content in a moderation queue before making them visible. I do like the idea, but it might not fly well with the typical Facebook user, who is accustomed to the instant gratification of seeing his/her post on the feed, followed by likes and comments.
- gaogao 7y agoIt wouldn't be impossible to do faster moderation in these cases. People usually take a bit of time between completion of a post and submission, where you could run basic moderation checks.
- gaogao 7y agoRunning it by a human moderator wouldn't likely be possible in that time, but the false positive rate is probably low enough, that you could fall back to delaying the posting in those cases.
- hliyan 7y agoThis gave me an idea: how about you give the author in-editor feedback? As you type your message it runs the content through some sort of sentiment + content analysis and tells you on a scale of 1-10 how civil or factual your post is. This way harmful content not only gets self-moderated, but with repeated, immediate feedback, users actually learn how to write better. I'm not saying that posts with a low score be removed, but perhaps they will receive less priority on the feed. Building that analysis layer is the difficult part.
- makomk 7y agoI don't think it flies well with the typical XHamster user either to be perfectly honest. People seem to actively prefer posting to other competing sites precisely because they don't have to wait hours or days for their videos to go live. (It's pretty much the only such site which this kind of slow pre-moderation as far as I know.)
- vanderZwan 7y agoSure, but that changes nothing about the central argument that such restrictions would not stop social media platforms from thriving.