3 ms·

The clear implication here is surely that 15,000 is not enough. Which is maybe not surprising when Facebook claims to have 2.85 billion active users. By that me

The clear implication here is surely that 15,000 is not enough. Which is maybe not surprising when Facebook claims to have 2.85 billion active users. By that metric 15k isn't really all that much. > Content moderation at Facebook scale is really, really hard. Even for real people. Maybe you could even argue that it's impossible. The question then is what to do about it. One answer could be "stop using recommendation algorithms you do not control", but that would harm Facebook's profits.

jasonshaev 5y ago
My guess (and this is purely a guess) is that it's "solvable" to within some threshold. But what is that threshold? I have no idea. If you turn the knobs too far, you'll presumably end up with more false positives. What's an acceptable threshold for false positives? I have no idea. If you asked me 3 years ago, I would have naively answered that technology can do a much better job consistently enforcing moderation rules than our current technology actually can. Realizing how hard it is, even for "trained" humans, eviscerated that naivety real fast. I definitely agree it's, literally, impossible for 15k moderators to accurately review anywhere near enough posts to get to whatever that acceptable threshold is. I'm also not convinced doubling that number is enough either. There's always a certain arbitrariness and subjective interpretation in content moderation. Someone will always end up unhappy with the result.
beerandt 5y ago
Plus the number of moderators is irrelevant if they're trained to only remove posts from non-advertisers, or base their decisions on biased "fact-checker" articles.
karmelapple 5y ago
Using algorithms to determine the order someone sees things in is, in my view, a social media company applying editorial content. And therefore, if their editor (which is an algorithm for Facebook and Twitter) promotes something that’s slanderous or libelous, Facebook should be held to the same standards as an editor who could be prosecuted for that. Same with someone who writes something on Facebook. Write something slanderous? You are like a newspaper reporter at this point. Facebook promotes it in the algorithm? Now their algorithm is responsible, too. Facebook, nor its users, have any significant negative consequences for publishing anything that is false or misleading. Until that changes, I doubt the company’s behavior, nor individual posters, will change.
- root_axis 5y ago
  That's not a good analogy. "Editorial content" is authored by individuals working for or otherwise associated with the publication, this is not the case with Facebook where content is posted by individuals that have no business relationship to Facebook.
  - Nevermark 5y ago
    Your feed is not an innocent random sampling of posts and recommendations from the people and topics you follow. Facebook does need to be held accountable for the damage done by promoting harmful content. They are externalizing grave costs in order to maximizing their advertising income.
bellyfullofbac 5y ago
Aren't those just the "disposable" moderators that have to judge whether an image is child/animal abuse, who work for a while and get burned out with psychological trauma? And they're mostly living in third world countries, so in the eyes of Zuck even more disposable? Figuring out if a group is political or not needs the knowledge of political figures/parties, and the ability to understand the name of the group in its local language...

jasonshaev 5y ago

My guess (and this is purely a guess) is that it's "solvable" to within some threshold. But what is that threshold? I have no idea. If you turn the knobs too far, you'll presumably end up with more false positives. What's an acceptable threshold for false positives? I have no idea. If you asked me 3 years ago, I would have naively answered that technology can do a much better job consistently enforcing moderation rules than our current technology actually can. Realizing how hard it is, even for "trained" humans, eviscerated that naivety real fast. I definitely agree it's, literally, impossible for 15k moderators to accurately review anywhere near enough posts to get to whatever that acceptable threshold is. I'm also not convinced doubling that number is enough either. There's always a certain arbitrariness and subjective interpretation in content moderation. Someone will always end up unhappy with the result.

beerandt 5y ago

Plus the number of moderators is irrelevant if they're trained to only remove posts from non-advertisers, or base their decisions on biased "fact-checker" articles.

karmelapple 5y ago

Using algorithms to determine the order someone sees things in is, in my view, a social media company applying editorial content. And therefore, if their editor (which is an algorithm for Facebook and Twitter) promotes something that’s slanderous or libelous, Facebook should be held to the same standards as an editor who could be prosecuted for that. Same with someone who writes something on Facebook. Write something slanderous? You are like a newspaper reporter at this point. Facebook promotes it in the algorithm? Now their algorithm is responsible, too. Facebook, nor its users, have any significant negative consequences for publishing anything that is false or misleading. Until that changes, I doubt the company’s behavior, nor individual posters, will change.

root_axis 5y ago
That's not a good analogy. "Editorial content" is authored by individuals working for or otherwise associated with the publication, this is not the case with Facebook where content is posted by individuals that have no business relationship to Facebook.
- Nevermark 5y ago
  Your feed is not an innocent random sampling of posts and recommendations from the people and topics you follow. Facebook does need to be held accountable for the damage done by promoting harmful content. They are externalizing grave costs in order to maximizing their advertising income.

bellyfullofbac 5y ago

Aren't those just the "disposable" moderators that have to judge whether an image is child/animal abuse, who work for a while and get burned out with psychological trauma? And they're mostly living in third world countries, so in the eyes of Zuck even more disposable? Figuring out if a group is political or not needs the knowledge of political figures/parties, and the ability to understand the name of the group in its local language...