4 ms·

Sure, I'll do that. It's not as hard as you make it sound. Spam classifiers work fine for example. Nobody complains about special exemption lists for the Gmail

Sure, I'll do that. It's not as hard as you make it sound. Spam classifiers work fine for example. Nobody complains about special exemption lists for the Gmail spam filter because it doesn't need any. The term spam is not precisely defined but a strong social consensus exists on what the word means and that's sufficient for voting on mail streams to work. So I'd just build one of those and collect my big pile of cash. But that's not the sort of content classification you mean, is it. So the problem isn't technical. Rather it's an entirely self inflicted problem by Facebook. The cause is an attempt to broker a compromise between the original spirit of the site and internal activists who are bent on controlling information and manipulating opinion. The reason they make so many bad judgement calls is because they're not trying to impose clearly defined rules, but rather, ever shifting and deliberately ill-posed left wing standards like "misinformation" or "hate speech". Because these terms are defined and redefined on a near daily basis by ideological warriors and not some kind of universal social consensus, it is absolutely inevitable that the site ends up like this. A death spiral in which no amount of moderation can ever be sufficient for some of their loudest employees simply cannot be avoided once you cross the Rubicon of arbitrary vague censorship rules. If Facebook want to reduce the number of embarrassing incidents, they can do it tomorrow. All they have to do is stop trying to label misinformation or auto-classify posts as racist/terrorism-supporting/etc. Stand up and loudly defend the morality of freedom of speech. Refocus their abuse teams on auto-generated commercial spam, like webmail companies do, and leave the rest alone. This isn't hard, they did it in the early days of the site. It may mean firing employees who don't agree, but those employees would never get tired of waging war against opinions they don't like no matter how much was spent on moderation, so it's ultimately futile trying to please them.

lavabiopsy 5y ago
I'm sorry, I am having a really hard time understanding this comment. You're suggesting they just apply a email spam filter and that will fix everything? Can you explain how this would work, considering that Facebook is not an email service, and any spam filter would likely face the same issues with abuse that have already been mentioned anyway? Also I really don't follow how your last two paragraphs have anything to do with that, it seems you're saying a lot of unprovable and out-of-context politically motivated things, and then saying they should just give up on the problem entirely and have no moderation whatsoever? Isn't that the whole thing you're trying to solve though? I don't get it. Please avoid the off-topic political comments if you want to make your arguments easy to follow, and just focus on what the solution is and how to get there. Rule of thumb I've noticed: if a comment could be viewed as a political rant, it's probably not going to be very convincing.
- native_samples 5y ago
  Spam filters don't only apply to emails and Facebook already has one, of course, to stop fake account signups and posting of commercial spam. Nonetheless spam filters are a form of content classification. Yes, I'm saying that Facebook should just "give up" and stop trying to do political moderation on top of their pre-existing spam classification. This is not radical. For years they didn't do things like fact check posts or try to auto-classify racism, the site was fine. It was during this period that Facebook grew like crazy and took over the world, so clearly real users were happy with the level and type of content classification during this time. You ask - isn't moderation the problem they're trying to solve. This gets to the heart of the matter. What is the actual problem Facebook are facing here? I read the WSJ article and the quotes from the internal documents. To me the articles and documents are discussing this problem: their content moderation is very unreliable (10% error rate according to Zuck) therefore they have created a massive whitelist of famous people who would otherwise get random takedowns which would expose the arbitrary and flaky nature of the system. By their own telling this is unfair, unequal, runs counter to the site's founding principles and has led to bad things like lying to their own oversight board. It's clear from this thread that some HN posters are reading it and seeing a different problem: content moderation isn't aggressive enough and stupid decisions, like labelling a discussion of paint as racist, should just apply to everyone without exception. I think the actual problem is better interpreted the first way. Facebook created XCheck because their content moderation is horrifically unreliable. This is not inherent to the nature of automated decision making, as Gmail spam filtering shows - it works fine, is uncontroversial and makes users happy regardless of their politics. Rather, it's inherent to the extremely vague "rules" they're trying to enforce, which aren't really rules at all but rather an attempt to guess what might inflame political activists of various kinds, mostly on the left. But most people aren't activists. If they just rolled back their content policies to what they were seven or eight years ago, the NYT set would go berserk, but most other people wouldn't care much or would actively approve. After all, they didn't care before and Facebook's own documents show that their own userbase is making a sport out of mocking their terrible moderation. Finally, you edited your comment to add a personal attack claiming I'm making "off topic political comments". There could be nothing more on-topic, as you must know from reading the article. The XCheck system exists to stop celebrities and politicians from being randomly whacked by an out of control auto-moderator system. A major source of controversy inside Facebook was when it was realized that the system was protecting political incumbents simply because they were more famous than their political challengers, thus giving the ruling parties a literal exemption from the rules that applied to other politicians. The political nature of the system and impact of moderation on politics is an overriding theme of concern throughout the documents. You can read the article for free if you sign in - that's how I did it.

lavabiopsy 5y ago

I'm sorry, I am having a really hard time understanding this comment. You're suggesting they just apply a email spam filter and that will fix everything? Can you explain how this would work, considering that Facebook is not an email service, and any spam filter would likely face the same issues with abuse that have already been mentioned anyway? Also I really don't follow how your last two paragraphs have anything to do with that, it seems you're saying a lot of unprovable and out-of-context politically motivated things, and then saying they should just give up on the problem entirely and have no moderation whatsoever? Isn't that the whole thing you're trying to solve though? I don't get it. Please avoid the off-topic political comments if you want to make your arguments easy to follow, and just focus on what the solution is and how to get there. Rule of thumb I've noticed: if a comment could be viewed as a political rant, it's probably not going to be very convincing.

native_samples 5y ago
Spam filters don't only apply to emails and Facebook already has one, of course, to stop fake account signups and posting of commercial spam. Nonetheless spam filters are a form of content classification. Yes, I'm saying that Facebook should just "give up" and stop trying to do political moderation on top of their pre-existing spam classification. This is not radical. For years they didn't do things like fact check posts or try to auto-classify racism, the site was fine. It was during this period that Facebook grew like crazy and took over the world, so clearly real users were happy with the level and type of content classification during this time. You ask - isn't moderation the problem they're trying to solve. This gets to the heart of the matter. What is the actual problem Facebook are facing here? I read the WSJ article and the quotes from the internal documents. To me the articles and documents are discussing this problem: their content moderation is very unreliable (10% error rate according to Zuck) therefore they have created a massive whitelist of famous people who would otherwise get random takedowns which would expose the arbitrary and flaky nature of the system. By their own telling this is unfair, unequal, runs counter to the site's founding principles and has led to bad things like lying to their own oversight board. It's clear from this thread that some HN posters are reading it and seeing a different problem: content moderation isn't aggressive enough and stupid decisions, like labelling a discussion of paint as racist, should just apply to everyone without exception. I think the actual problem is better interpreted the first way. Facebook created XCheck because their content moderation is horrifically unreliable. This is not inherent to the nature of automated decision making, as Gmail spam filtering shows - it works fine, is uncontroversial and makes users happy regardless of their politics. Rather, it's inherent to the extremely vague "rules" they're trying to enforce, which aren't really rules at all but rather an attempt to guess what might inflame political activists of various kinds, mostly on the left. But most people aren't activists. If they just rolled back their content policies to what they were seven or eight years ago, the NYT set would go berserk, but most other people wouldn't care much or would actively approve. After all, they didn't care before and Facebook's own documents show that their own userbase is making a sport out of mocking their terrible moderation. Finally, you edited your comment to add a personal attack claiming I'm making "off topic political comments". There could be nothing more on-topic, as you must know from reading the article. The XCheck system exists to stop celebrities and politicians from being randomly whacked by an out of control auto-moderator system. A major source of controversy inside Facebook was when it was realized that the system was protecting political incumbents simply because they were more famous than their political challengers, thus giving the ruling parties a literal exemption from the rules that applied to other politicians. The political nature of the system and impact of moderation on politics is an overriding theme of concern throughout the documents. You can read the article for free if you sign in - that's how I did it.