4 ms·

>For years they didn't do things like fact check posts or try to auto-classify racism, the site was fine >Gmail spam filtering [...] works fine, is uncontrover

>For years they didn't do things like fact check posts or try to auto-classify racism, the site was fine >Gmail spam filtering [...] works fine, is uncontroversial and makes users happy regardless of their politics >an attempt to guess what might inflame political activists of various kinds, mostly on the left This is more of what I meant: I find these arguments to be unconvincing, if you're going to make these claims convincingly then you need to show proof of this. Remember we're talking about two billion users here. Your post does not read like an actual attempt to solve the problem but instead an attempt to attack "activists on the left" and "the NYT set" which I don't even know who you're talking about or what that's supposed to mean in this context, I would advise against making these type of statements. It would be more convincing to mention a specific person or persons, what their claims are, and what you disagree with and why. >Finally, you edited your comment to add a personal attack claiming I'm making "off topic political comments". This is false, there's no personal attack, I'm saying your comments are unrelated to the argument and are not convincing to me. If you're confused about this, a personal attack would be something along the lines of "X person is a bad person because they follow Y political persuasion" which your comments could be construed as doing about Facebook's employees. So please make sure not to do that. This is again why I highly suggest against making this a political argument, usually it results in someone getting defensive, when there's no reason to do that. If you want me to put this more frankly: I don't care about your politics or facebook's politics, that's not an interesting subject to me. It's nothing personal against you or facebook. Just talk about the problem please, otherwise I don't want to continue this discussion. >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. This also seems not really related to the argument. Sure it affects politicians but as has been established, that's a side effect of the way the system has been designed. I don't think it makes a difference whether the side effect was intentional or not.

native_samples 5y ago
I really wonder if we read the same article. Large parts of it are about politics and the different ways their system affects different kinds of politics and politicians. I don't understand why you find this somehow irrelevant or compartmentalizable. If you don't care about politics then this whole article and thread about it probably just isn't for you, because the concerns are fundamentally political to their core. In fact the criticism of XCheck is an egalitarian one, that the rules for the famous/ruling classes should be the same as for the plebs. To flesh this out, look at the examples in the article where moderation decisions split or were reversed - that's the problem XCheck is designed to solve. Most are about politics: - Saying "white paint colors are the worst" was classed as racism. Trying to define and then scrub all racist speech from the world is a left wing policy. - A journalist who (we are told) was criticizing Osama bin Laden was classed automatically as supporting him, and then human moderators agreed. Scrubbing this sort of thing is (in the USA) historically either a right wing or bipartisan consensus. We don't know why the moderators agreed because the comments themselves are not presented to us. This was later overridden by higher ups at Facebook. - Split decisions over Trump's post saying "when the looting starts the shooting starts" that got escalated to Zuckerberg himself. - "The program included most government officials but didn't include all public candidates for office". etc. If you try to ignore politics, the entire debate becomes meaningless, because indeed, you would not even perceive any problem with unequal enforcement in the first place.
- lavabiopsy 5y ago
  >Large parts of it are about politics and the different ways their system affects different kinds of politics and politicians This again would be a side effect. Obviously it's not irrelevant but I have seen no reason to prioritize that over anything else. >because the concerns are fundamentally political to their core If by political you mean "needs to be solved with politics" then I can't necessarily agree, this is also a technical problem. To put it another way, it wouldn't just magically get fixed if you elect some new congresspeople or replace Zuckerburg, the new people still have to take additional technical steps to fix the problem. If the solution already exists and is being ignored then I would agree, but I have seen no solution offered in this thread. Instead of trying to present the solution, which I have asked you to do repeatedly, it seems you're still trying to make this a political argument, which I wish you wouldn't do. I don't know how many times I need to say that it's not convincing to me to come at it from that angle. I'm sorry if that seems rude but it's the truth of the matter. If your end goal is to campaign for me to vote for somebody, please stop, I'm not interested to hear it (again nothing personal). On the rest of your comment: I honestly have no idea what your examples are supposed to mean, why you are making these assumptions or why the political motives or policies of some other parties matters. There will always be some users that take issue with any kind of filtering and it makes no sense to me to prioritize ones who happen to have adopted something as a political position at some arbitrary point in the past. If your issue is "unequal enforcement" then can you please elaborate on how a different kind of filtering would help with any of these examples? Why would a different system result in not needing to step in and reverse controversial decisions? I asked for proof of this a few posts ago and you didn't give any.

native_samples 5y ago

I really wonder if we read the same article. Large parts of it are about politics and the different ways their system affects different kinds of politics and politicians. I don't understand why you find this somehow irrelevant or compartmentalizable. If you don't care about politics then this whole article and thread about it probably just isn't for you, because the concerns are fundamentally political to their core. In fact the criticism of XCheck is an egalitarian one, that the rules for the famous/ruling classes should be the same as for the plebs. To flesh this out, look at the examples in the article where moderation decisions split or were reversed - that's the problem XCheck is designed to solve. Most are about politics: - Saying "white paint colors are the worst" was classed as racism. Trying to define and then scrub all racist speech from the world is a left wing policy. - A journalist who (we are told) was criticizing Osama bin Laden was classed automatically as supporting him, and then human moderators agreed. Scrubbing this sort of thing is (in the USA) historically either a right wing or bipartisan consensus. We don't know why the moderators agreed because the comments themselves are not presented to us. This was later overridden by higher ups at Facebook. - Split decisions over Trump's post saying "when the looting starts the shooting starts" that got escalated to Zuckerberg himself. - "The program included most government officials but didn't include all public candidates for office". etc. If you try to ignore politics, the entire debate becomes meaningless, because indeed, you would not even perceive any problem with unequal enforcement in the first place.

lavabiopsy 5y ago
>Large parts of it are about politics and the different ways their system affects different kinds of politics and politicians This again would be a side effect. Obviously it's not irrelevant but I have seen no reason to prioritize that over anything else. >because the concerns are fundamentally political to their core If by political you mean "needs to be solved with politics" then I can't necessarily agree, this is also a technical problem. To put it another way, it wouldn't just magically get fixed if you elect some new congresspeople or replace Zuckerburg, the new people still have to take additional technical steps to fix the problem. If the solution already exists and is being ignored then I would agree, but I have seen no solution offered in this thread. Instead of trying to present the solution, which I have asked you to do repeatedly, it seems you're still trying to make this a political argument, which I wish you wouldn't do. I don't know how many times I need to say that it's not convincing to me to come at it from that angle. I'm sorry if that seems rude but it's the truth of the matter. If your end goal is to campaign for me to vote for somebody, please stop, I'm not interested to hear it (again nothing personal). On the rest of your comment: I honestly have no idea what your examples are supposed to mean, why you are making these assumptions or why the political motives or policies of some other parties matters. There will always be some users that take issue with any kind of filtering and it makes no sense to me to prioritize ones who happen to have adopted something as a political position at some arbitrary point in the past. If your issue is "unequal enforcement" then can you please elaborate on how a different kind of filtering would help with any of these examples? Why would a different system result in not needing to step in and reverse controversial decisions? I asked for proof of this a few posts ago and you didn't give any.