3 ms·

Let me paint a hypothetical. I create a new social network startup. Early on, most of the people it attracts are those banned from Twitter and Facebook - since

Let me paint a hypothetical. I create a new social network startup. Early on, most of the people it attracts are those banned from Twitter and Facebook - since they don't have a lot of other options. In addition to normal social network things, they post some questionable and inciting content. Since I'm a startup, I have a small moderation team and no fancy AI moderation so most of it slips through the cracks. Is my social network "built to enable terrorism"? The political situation we find ourselves in, even though it was allowed to fester for years on established social media platforms, seems ideal for securing a monopoly for those same platforms. How could a competitor get a foot in the door without being accused of catering to extremists?

jfengel 6y ago
I'd say yes, in fact. The notion that you'd need moderation should not come as a surprise to you. It's not 1997, so it's not like you don't know that this kind of thing happens. If you want to build a social network, handling the moderation load is part of your job, not an afterthought. We absolutely allowed large social media platforms to get away with it for far too long. It's not the only thing making them a monopoly -- the network effect of having all of your friends in one place is also a significant barrier to entry for any new social media site. Fixing that after the fact isn't easy. But it doesn't mean that you can act as though you're not very, very, very late to the party in trying to establish a new social media site. In 2021 it's part of any new site to make sure you're not being used for crime -- or at least making enough of an attempt that authorities don't see you as being implicated.
JohnBooty 6y ago
Let me paint a hypothetical. [...] Since I'm a startup, I have a small moderation team and no fancy AI moderation so most of it slips through the cracks. Is my social network "built to enable terrorism"? Not hypothetical to me! I once ran an for-profit online community. It was a startup, with strictly volunteer moderators. It was an early "social networking" thing; honestly more like "a BBS with some primordial social features". But hey, sounds like your hypothetical to an extent. This doesn't mean I know anything. Just means I'm sympathetic to the plight of folks trying to make that sort of thing a reality. For the record, I'd sure like to give it another try at some point myself. Anyway, intent matters here, to an extent. Parler advertised itself as a more or less moderation-free space. That's quite different thing from Twitter and FB, with their codes of conduct and actual moderation teams. I mean, the line may be fuzzy, but it's there. I'll be the first person to say that Twitter and FB suck, and moderation efforts for advertising-driven user content mills are probably eternally doomed because their very business model dictates that their user-to-moderator ratio is always going to be laughably huge; far too large to enable effective moderation barring some kind of generational leap in AI moderation tools. But there is at least the semblance of a good-faith effort there from those two, as much as I dislike them.
notacoward 6y ago
> seems ideal for securing a monopoly Seems like a bit of a catch-22, doesn't it? If we set moderation standards too low, then big social-media companies are evil because they're not doing anything about harmful content. If we set those standards too high, then big social-media companies are evil because monopoly. And there never seems to be any space in between. We need something better than just an excuse to hate on Facebook/Twitter/YouTube/etc.

jfengel 6y ago

I'd say yes, in fact. The notion that you'd need moderation should not come as a surprise to you. It's not 1997, so it's not like you don't know that this kind of thing happens. If you want to build a social network, handling the moderation load is part of your job, not an afterthought. We absolutely allowed large social media platforms to get away with it for far too long. It's not the only thing making them a monopoly -- the network effect of having all of your friends in one place is also a significant barrier to entry for any new social media site. Fixing that after the fact isn't easy. But it doesn't mean that you can act as though you're not very, very, very late to the party in trying to establish a new social media site. In 2021 it's part of any new site to make sure you're not being used for crime -- or at least making enough of an attempt that authorities don't see you as being implicated.

JohnBooty 6y ago

Let me paint a hypothetical. [...] Since I'm a startup, I have a small moderation team and no fancy AI moderation so most of it slips through the cracks. Is my social network "built to enable terrorism"? Not hypothetical to me! I once ran an for-profit online community. It was a startup, with strictly volunteer moderators. It was an early "social networking" thing; honestly more like "a BBS with some primordial social features". But hey, sounds like your hypothetical to an extent. This doesn't mean I know anything. Just means I'm sympathetic to the plight of folks trying to make that sort of thing a reality. For the record, I'd sure like to give it another try at some point myself. Anyway, intent matters here, to an extent. Parler advertised itself as a more or less moderation-free space. That's quite different thing from Twitter and FB, with their codes of conduct and actual moderation teams. I mean, the line may be fuzzy, but it's there. I'll be the first person to say that Twitter and FB suck, and moderation efforts for advertising-driven user content mills are probably eternally doomed because their very business model dictates that their user-to-moderator ratio is always going to be laughably huge; far too large to enable effective moderation barring some kind of generational leap in AI moderation tools. But there is at least the semblance of a good-faith effort there from those two, as much as I dislike them.

notacoward 6y ago

> seems ideal for securing a monopoly Seems like a bit of a catch-22, doesn't it? If we set moderation standards too low, then big social-media companies are evil because they're not doing anything about harmful content. If we set those standards too high, then big social-media companies are evil because monopoly. And there never seems to be any space in between. We need something better than just an excuse to hate on Facebook/Twitter/YouTube/etc.