5 ms·

This is exactly the solution. IF tons of people are reporting Steve Newscaster because he posted a status about how his team won, then he shouldn't become immun

This is exactly the solution. IF tons of people are reporting Steve Newscaster because he posted a status about how his team won, then he shouldn't become immune to criticism, those people should lose the privilege of having their voice heard. Just send them a little message saying "Hey, you've falsely reported a bunch of posts/accounts lately, so we're restricting your ability to report content for 30 days." and if they keep doing it, make it permanent.

stickfigure 5y ago
That might not work. In the eternal September of Facebook there may always be enough new accounts to continuously file false reports against high profile accounts.
- greenyoda 5y ago
  HN has addressed this problem by not granting new users flagging privileges - you need a certain karma threshold to flag an article or comment. And flagging/vouching privileges can be removed for HN users who abuse them.
  - anigbrowl 5y ago
    Yeah but you can just buy warmed-up verified accounts on SEO marketplaces, often several years old and patiently curated to be blandly inoffensive and ready to be turned into whatever you need.
    - greenyoda 5y ago
      Still, having to do that greatly reduces the problem. The average person who wants to censor a politician they hate isn't going to spend money to buy an account. Another potential mitigation might be to put a limit on the number of posts that a single user can flag in a day. At some point, the cost of large-scale content manipulation could be made to exceed the expected gains. It may even be profitable for Facebook to crack down on this. Every celebrity post that gets illegitimately taken down has potential for showing ads to millions of people.
  - 908B64B197 5y ago
    No. HN has addressed this problem by keeping it text-only.
PoignardAzur 5y ago
Here's the thing: I can think of multiple ways this could be abused or controversial, in less than 30 seconds. You can probably too. Actual hostile actors will have years to find ways to use the rules to create controversy and shut down dissenting posts. If people learn they get flagged after N spurious reports, they'll start rationing their reports so they don't meet the treshhold; they'll start making inflammatory posts that technically respect the rules to bait false reports. They'll create scandals, eg "Person X said awful thing Y, but when I tried to report them Facebook told me I wasn't allowed to report people anymore. Why does Facebook support Y?" That's not to say your idea is bad. Just, you're making it sound really easy, when it's a problem Facebook has poured millions into without finding many solutions.
qweqwweqwe-90i 5y ago
Write me a sentence that won't get 1000 reports if viewed by 60 million people.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- artiszt 5y ago
  right. very likely they wouldn't be even capable to instruct their faked 60 mill ai-managed profiles 'to like' Zuckerboi's own sentence for that matter ..

stickfigure 5y ago

That might not work. In the eternal September of Facebook there may always be enough new accounts to continuously file false reports against high profile accounts.

greenyoda 5y ago
HN has addressed this problem by not granting new users flagging privileges - you need a certain karma threshold to flag an article or comment. And flagging/vouching privileges can be removed for HN users who abuse them.
- anigbrowl 5y ago
  Yeah but you can just buy warmed-up verified accounts on SEO marketplaces, often several years old and patiently curated to be blandly inoffensive and ready to be turned into whatever you need.
  - greenyoda 5y ago
    Still, having to do that greatly reduces the problem. The average person who wants to censor a politician they hate isn't going to spend money to buy an account. Another potential mitigation might be to put a limit on the number of posts that a single user can flag in a day. At some point, the cost of large-scale content manipulation could be made to exceed the expected gains. It may even be profitable for Facebook to crack down on this. Every celebrity post that gets illegitimately taken down has potential for showing ads to millions of people.
- 908B64B197 5y ago
  No. HN has addressed this problem by keeping it text-only.

PoignardAzur 5y ago

Here's the thing: I can think of multiple ways this could be abused or controversial, in less than 30 seconds. You can probably too. Actual hostile actors will have years to find ways to use the rules to create controversy and shut down dissenting posts. If people learn they get flagged after N spurious reports, they'll start rationing their reports so they don't meet the treshhold; they'll start making inflammatory posts that technically respect the rules to bait false reports. They'll create scandals, eg "Person X said awful thing Y, but when I tried to report them Facebook told me I wasn't allowed to report people anymore. Why does Facebook support Y?" That's not to say your idea is bad. Just, you're making it sound really easy, when it's a problem Facebook has poured millions into without finding many solutions.

qweqwweqwe-90i 5y ago

Write me a sentence that won't get 1000 reports if viewed by 60 million people.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
artiszt 5y ago
right. very likely they wouldn't be even capable to instruct their faked 60 mill ai-managed profiles 'to like' Zuckerboi's own sentence for that matter ..