3 ms·

Because FB is probably one of the few places actually trying to grapple with the scope of this problem in a manner that makes business/practical sense. Not at

Because FB is probably one of the few places actually trying to grapple with the scope of this problem in a manner that makes business/practical sense. Not at FB. Content moderation is developing so fast, and with problems so thorny, that the difference between intuitions of normal people and trust and safety teams is whiplash causing. Current moderation practices are perhaps analogous to the ages of proto police forces. Since there is also no separation of powers, moderation is a cost center, and comprehension of moderation principles is nascent and disregarded outside of T&S teams, you have people from sales/strategy/Personal connections overturning rules/policy. The speaker at this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J19Xa3-SN1M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J19Xa3-SN1M, has a book on this topic which discusses some of the many problems this field throws up. FB is trying to resolve this problem by offloading the problematic thought policing to the state, in some way or form - white paper sent in the UK is a case in point. This is likely the way forward for major firms, it seems unfortunate, but unless someone reframes the incentives and problems, government sanctioned censorship is the likely future.

loopz 6y ago
Corporations cannot outsource "thought policing" to "the State", as the State deems social media platforms able to effect elections. A tiny percentage, but not most, is covered by Law. Shunning accountability only go so far. Sooner or later it is optimized into a closed, shrinking circle.
- intended 6y ago
  Well in the UK, that is starting to happen, the online harms paper is out, and OFCOM will be taking some amount of that work. Since foreign agencies are able to use platforms to influence elections then governments are going to take action to protect their processes. At the same time, from the firm's perspective, they have to be arbiters of issues that the public has never discussed or dealt with, the political powers of the polity are involved in it = all of which has to be done at massive scale, across multiple jurisdictions and laws. This is an unsolvable problem. Right now they get told of for not removing conspiracies and for removing conspiracies, all the while being told off for harming free speech. Having an outside third party to play referee is just cheaper, so they will fight and lobby for it in some for or the other.
roudaki 6y ago
I have seen at Youtube how 5 people can approve content and team lead but management from marketing and branding had admin privileges and would overrule our decision. I can point to a couple YouTubers that Youtube loves but Google management demonetize regularly every time they say something against Youtube. (Phillip DeFranco is a good example.) The problem in Facebook is that more management has access and they are weird and politically motivated or just snobs.

loopz 6y ago

Corporations cannot outsource "thought policing" to "the State", as the State deems social media platforms able to effect elections. A tiny percentage, but not most, is covered by Law. Shunning accountability only go so far. Sooner or later it is optimized into a closed, shrinking circle.

intended 6y ago
Well in the UK, that is starting to happen, the online harms paper is out, and OFCOM will be taking some amount of that work. Since foreign agencies are able to use platforms to influence elections then governments are going to take action to protect their processes. At the same time, from the firm's perspective, they have to be arbiters of issues that the public has never discussed or dealt with, the political powers of the polity are involved in it = all of which has to be done at massive scale, across multiple jurisdictions and laws. This is an unsolvable problem. Right now they get told of for not removing conspiracies and for removing conspiracies, all the while being told off for harming free speech. Having an outside third party to play referee is just cheaper, so they will fight and lobby for it in some for or the other.

roudaki 6y ago

I have seen at Youtube how 5 people can approve content and team lead but management from marketing and branding had admin privileges and would overrule our decision. I can point to a couple YouTubers that Youtube loves but Google management demonetize regularly every time they say something against Youtube. (Phillip DeFranco is a good example.) The problem in Facebook is that more management has access and they are weird and politically motivated or just snobs.