3 ms·

The wackos are the ones creating the context in which moderate voices lose their power. If you want moderation, you have to remove the extreme BS and the algori

The wackos are the ones creating the context in which moderate voices lose their power. If you want moderation, you have to remove the extreme BS and the algorithms that thrive on it, which process buries moderates and makes their views anathema to the polarized extremes. Why allow polarized extremes to form on your private, I must emphasize privately owned, platform? This isn't the public square, freedom of speech does not guarantee freedom of reach. Content moderation is a good thing, it has the word moderate in it after all, that may signal that it promotes healthy dialogue just like public ridicule and scorn and shame should, in theory, moderate discourse actually covered by free speech in the public square, where it's not anonymous.

vorpalhex 5y ago
The wackos don't actually have the power to take down moderates as parent discusses. Only youtube has that power. Content moderation is not inherently good or bad, it simply is. A version of Youtube that cracked down on well known science would be legal but not "good".
SamPatt 5y ago
The problem is: who determines who the "wackos" are and what is and isn't "extreme BS"? If it's defined by social consensus then during periods of groupthink and hysteria (common among humans) even the most reasonable people will be labeled wackos and shunned.
- jakelazaroff 5y ago
  Do you think YouTube would be justified in banning ISIS recruitment videos, for example? After all, who’s to say that’s “extreme BS”?
  - HeroOfAges 5y ago
    Well, any ISIS content on the platform could be considered recruitment material. If in the content of the video no crime has been committed, YouTube would not be justified in banning ISIS recruitment videos or any of their content.
  - SamPatt 5y ago
    My preferred policy would be to only remove speech which is actively calling for violence. This fits in line with a common conception of what we view as reasonable limits on free speech. Removing speech of people sharing their beliefs about the risks and rewards of putting substances in their bodies or other medical decisions doesn't meet this standard.
    - goatlover 5y ago
      > Removing speech of people sharing their beliefs about the risks and rewards of putting substances in their bodies or other medical decisions doesn't meet this standard. That's different from spreading conspiracy theories about putting substance in their bodies. Actual disinformation (blatantly false) and not just discussing their hesitancy to get a vaccine.
inglor_cz 5y ago
If you want moderation, you need human moderators. The trouble with the tech giants is that their "free service paid by ads" business model completely collapses into red numbers if they start employing adequate numbers of people for that purpose. So they resort to artificial intelligence, which is worse than natural stupidity in this regard.
- angelzen 5y ago
  Not only that human moderators are better than ML moderators, but we probably want human moderators enmeshed in the community. Having Filipinos moderate the speech of Arizonians is not going to work very well.
  - N00bN00b 5y ago
    It's just a never ending disaster once you go down that path. Because now people have to "select" their community somehow. If that existed, I'd refuse to be part of whatever community you think I belong to and I'm going to pick the one least likely to interfere with me. And if it's a forced choice, I'm going to fight that instead. I think you'll have to educate and then just let everyone say whatever they want. You know, you don't HAVE to remove a video. Can just put another video above it that says "here's what we think is going on" and be done with it.
    - inglor_cz 5y ago
      There should be a certain degree of cultural competency, though. For example, Czech Facebook banned an ad with a word "Rifle" in it, because of an American ban on gun advertisements. But "Rifle" means "Blue Jeans" in Czech and nothing else. It is not a gun-related word in our language. And indeed the ad tried to sell blue jeans.
ethbr0 5y ago
The moderation is the problem. Because it's fundamentally a cost center, and will never be resourced sufficiently to do a nuanced job. Consequently, you get someone making minimum wage banning videos because they're not saying only positive things about vaccines. And Google and Facebook won't care. Because moderation is a cost intended to curb the worst PR scandals, but content is profit.

vorpalhex 5y ago

The wackos don't actually have the power to take down moderates as parent discusses. Only youtube has that power. Content moderation is not inherently good or bad, it simply is. A version of Youtube that cracked down on well known science would be legal but not "good".

SamPatt 5y ago

The problem is: who determines who the "wackos" are and what is and isn't "extreme BS"? If it's defined by social consensus then during periods of groupthink and hysteria (common among humans) even the most reasonable people will be labeled wackos and shunned.

jakelazaroff 5y ago
Do you think YouTube would be justified in banning ISIS recruitment videos, for example? After all, who’s to say that’s “extreme BS”?
- HeroOfAges 5y ago
  Well, any ISIS content on the platform could be considered recruitment material. If in the content of the video no crime has been committed, YouTube would not be justified in banning ISIS recruitment videos or any of their content.
- SamPatt 5y ago
  My preferred policy would be to only remove speech which is actively calling for violence. This fits in line with a common conception of what we view as reasonable limits on free speech. Removing speech of people sharing their beliefs about the risks and rewards of putting substances in their bodies or other medical decisions doesn't meet this standard.
  - goatlover 5y ago
    > Removing speech of people sharing their beliefs about the risks and rewards of putting substances in their bodies or other medical decisions doesn't meet this standard. That's different from spreading conspiracy theories about putting substance in their bodies. Actual disinformation (blatantly false) and not just discussing their hesitancy to get a vaccine.

inglor_cz 5y ago

If you want moderation, you need human moderators. The trouble with the tech giants is that their "free service paid by ads" business model completely collapses into red numbers if they start employing adequate numbers of people for that purpose. So they resort to artificial intelligence, which is worse than natural stupidity in this regard.

angelzen 5y ago
Not only that human moderators are better than ML moderators, but we probably want human moderators enmeshed in the community. Having Filipinos moderate the speech of Arizonians is not going to work very well.
- N00bN00b 5y ago
  It's just a never ending disaster once you go down that path. Because now people have to "select" their community somehow. If that existed, I'd refuse to be part of whatever community you think I belong to and I'm going to pick the one least likely to interfere with me. And if it's a forced choice, I'm going to fight that instead. I think you'll have to educate and then just let everyone say whatever they want. You know, you don't HAVE to remove a video. Can just put another video above it that says "here's what we think is going on" and be done with it.
  - inglor_cz 5y ago
    There should be a certain degree of cultural competency, though. For example, Czech Facebook banned an ad with a word "Rifle" in it, because of an American ban on gun advertisements. But "Rifle" means "Blue Jeans" in Czech and nothing else. It is not a gun-related word in our language. And indeed the ad tried to sell blue jeans.

ethbr0 5y ago

The moderation is the problem. Because it's fundamentally a cost center, and will never be resourced sufficiently to do a nuanced job. Consequently, you get someone making minimum wage banning videos because they're not saying only positive things about vaccines. And Google and Facebook won't care. Because moderation is a cost intended to curb the worst PR scandals, but content is profit.