4 ms·
I don't usually apologize for Facebook, but I wonder whether it might actually be a good-faith attempt by Facebook to provide good quality moderation. If havin
by csense 5y ago
I don't usually apologize for Facebook, but I wonder whether it might actually be a good-faith attempt by Facebook to provide good quality moderation.
If having human moderation costs too much to scale to everything, do you throw up our arms and say humans will moderate nothing and it's entirely up to bots? Or do you still put some limited resources into human moderation that could check 0.1% of content, then have some algorithm that picks what content the human moderation gets applied to?
If you go that route, you might be very tempted to try to design the algorithm for picking which 0.1% of content goes to the humans to try to pick "important" content. Because you want to apply your limited human moderation resources to content that's "important" to get right or will be "impactful" for large numbers of people or the trajectory of an entire society.
I understand why this angers people. Facebook might see it in terms of deploying limited moderation resources in the most effective way. But suppose you're an "ordinary" person who gets posts deleted, accounts locked, etc. by bots for no discernable reason with no appeal. As an "ordinary" person, learning "important" people have a different, more forgiving justice system where actual humans make decisions is going to make you pretty angry.
I'm not sure it's malicious intent on Facebook's part.
- ethanbond 5y agoThe point here is that their oversight board needs to know about these sorts of programs, not that the program is de facto bad.
- mandmandam 5y agoAlso, the program is bad though. We know nothing about who chooses the members of the VIP club, there were cases of harassment and incitement to violence that went unchecked, and they purposely hid knowledge of the program for their own oversight board - even though they appointed the board themselves. That's all quite, quite bad, to say nothing of the base inequality at he heart of it. They tried to hand-wave that away with this absurd line, saying the program was to: > "create an additional step so we can accurately enforce policies on content that could require more understanding" - dude, that's just saying that their chosen VIPs deserve more understanding, for some reason; in response to serious charges that the 'VIP's were inciting violence and harassing others.
- ipaddr 5y agoWhy would you expect facebook to share who chooses what a vip is? I can't think of any other vip program that shares this. A VIP program is about creating two or more classes of users what VIP program promotes equality? The worry most have is the oversite board was not aware of the program which means the oversite board may miss other things. You seem to be against VIP programs in general. Where do you draw the line? Bulk pricing creates inequality by favoring those who can afford to buy many products at once. Are you against this?
- mandmandam 5y agoAre you really defending a social media giant implementing a secret VIP program that allowed secret VIPs to harass people and incite violence, when 3 billion other users would face bans and sanctions if they did the exact same thing? I think the 'secret' part, where Facebook knew fully well that even their own oversight board stacked with their own appointees wouldn't tolerate such a thing - never mind 3 billion other users - quite clearly negates deceptive comparisons to "bulk pricing", and the like.