3 ms·

> they want to see zero of it, ever Many want that, but very few (probably nobody at all, by this point) expect it. > When the goal is to prevent users fr

> they want to see zero of it, ever Many want that, but very few (probably nobody at all, by this point) expect it. > When the goal is to prevent users from > seeing this content, crowd-sourcing moderation > defeats the purpose. It's not actually all-or-nothing, and if it were, it would defeat it no less frequently than paid moderation already does. People tolerated toxic internet content before social media not because they never encountered any, but because they encountered much less. No system can ever stop 100% of users from seeing 100% of the material they find objectionable. Every user has their own idea of what material is beyond the pale, and even if we invent AI that is competent at blocking content, and capable of tailoring its filters per-user, it will still fail some of the time, because users are people, and people's tastes change over time. Aside from that, the way Youtube, Reddit, Twitter et al, currently operate, a user who reports objectionable content typically waits days, weeks, or years (or forever) for the company to take action. If you give a user a little real agency, it goes a long way to mitigate their displeasure over occasional exposure to unwanted content.

shadowgovt 6y ago
What real agency does the system you propose offer? Because one down-moderation from a volunteer moderator is a drop in the bucket. Meanwhile, if your system requires users to view beheading videos regularly, people will just migrate to a site that doesn't require that.
- uniqueid 6y ago
  If I had to come up with a system, it would be some sort of reputation hierarchy, with a small number of paid employees at the top. Each level is responsible for auditing the levels under them. > What real agency does the system you propose offer? The ability for millions of users to moderate themselves. So... fast response time, by opinionated, emotionally-invested moderators, as opposed to the status quo: slow response time by paid burn-outs following a flow-chart. > if your system requires users to view beheading videos regularly I'm pretty sure that content would be reported faster than anything else. To be fair, another part of the issue is ban-evasion using multiple accounts, and that indeed requires additional measures to handle. Sadly, there's a disincentive to dealing with fake accounts, because trolls count as "sign-ups" too. > people will just migrate to a site that doesn't require that. Like Youtube and Facebook still occassionally do. Well, most users haven't abandoned them yet, so there goes that theory :)
  - shadowgovt 6y ago
    > occasionally Precisely. How often? Close to never.
    - uniqueid 6y ago
      Give or take a live-streamed Christchurch massacre?
      - shadowgovt 6y ago
        Yes. One disastrous livestream in the history of the feature, with further controls added almost immediately as a result.
        uniqueid 6y ago
        Neither Youtube nor Facebook currently are able to filter all these incidents. This happened after Christchurch: https://www.bangkokpost.com/thailand/general/1853804/mass-shooter-killed-at-korat-mall-20-dead https://www.bangkokpost.com/thailand/general/1853804/mass-sh... I could swear there was also a Christchurch copy-cat attack in Europe, but I can't remember sufficient details about it to find an article. Perhaps that one wasn't streamed on FB. I don't have encyclopedic knowledge of Facebook atrocities (I closed my account nearly a decade ago), but without vetting content before it goes live, I don't see how they will entirely prevent these videos from reaching some users.
        shadowgovt 6y ago
        I don't know that all is realistic. It's the desired unattainable goal. Almost all is the current status quo. If a service like FB were to adopt a volunteer moderator model, that track record would crash by definition because the moderators would be seeing the garbage. (That's before we factor in unintended consequences such as the risk that a critical mass of moderators decide the garbage is signal and start passing it. It's more risk than FB wants to take on for a problem they already solve via paid employees).

shadowgovt 6y ago

What real agency does the system you propose offer? Because one down-moderation from a volunteer moderator is a drop in the bucket. Meanwhile, if your system requires users to view beheading videos regularly, people will just migrate to a site that doesn't require that.

uniqueid 6y ago
If I had to come up with a system, it would be some sort of reputation hierarchy, with a small number of paid employees at the top. Each level is responsible for auditing the levels under them. > What real agency does the system you propose offer? The ability for millions of users to moderate themselves. So... fast response time, by opinionated, emotionally-invested moderators, as opposed to the status quo: slow response time by paid burn-outs following a flow-chart. > if your system requires users to view beheading videos regularly I'm pretty sure that content would be reported faster than anything else. To be fair, another part of the issue is ban-evasion using multiple accounts, and that indeed requires additional measures to handle. Sadly, there's a disincentive to dealing with fake accounts, because trolls count as "sign-ups" too. > people will just migrate to a site that doesn't require that. Like Youtube and Facebook still occassionally do. Well, most users haven't abandoned them yet, so there goes that theory :)
- shadowgovt 6y ago
  > occasionally Precisely. How often? Close to never.
  - uniqueid 6y ago
    Give or take a live-streamed Christchurch massacre?
    - shadowgovt 6y ago
      Yes. One disastrous livestream in the history of the feature, with further controls added almost immediately as a result.
      - uniqueid 6y ago
        Neither Youtube nor Facebook currently are able to filter all these incidents. This happened after Christchurch: https://www.bangkokpost.com/thailand/general/1853804/mass-shooter-killed-at-korat-mall-20-dead https://www.bangkokpost.com/thailand/general/1853804/mass-sh... I could swear there was also a Christchurch copy-cat attack in Europe, but I can't remember sufficient details about it to find an article. Perhaps that one wasn't streamed on FB. I don't have encyclopedic knowledge of Facebook atrocities (I closed my account nearly a decade ago), but without vetting content before it goes live, I don't see how they will entirely prevent these videos from reaching some users.
        shadowgovt 6y ago
        I don't know that all is realistic. It's the desired unattainable goal. Almost all is the current status quo. If a service like FB were to adopt a volunteer moderator model, that track record would crash by definition because the moderators would be seeing the garbage. (That's before we factor in unintended consequences such as the risk that a critical mass of moderators decide the garbage is signal and start passing it. It's more risk than FB wants to take on for a problem they already solve via paid employees).