5 ms·
It was more of a question than an accusation. Allowing user ranking is a conscious choice, and crowd/outsourcing the control decision. Courts have the say rath
by literallyaduck 5y ago
It was more of a question than an accusation.
Allowing user ranking is a conscious choice, and crowd/outsourcing the control decision. Courts have the say rather than you or me obviously, but I believe in a healthy discussion.
A similar format site, Reddit has been caught manipulating its votes and has paid boosting content in the form of "gold". Would they fit your standard of monetary incentives being key to a publisher?
How does a nonprofit publisher fit with that model?
- ksaj 5y agoIf users are buying the Gold and assign the Gold, then it isn't the same thing. Facebook actively created a tool to suppress something they recognized as harmful, then chose not to use it because that content was too profitable.
- literallyaduck 5y ago1. Reddit admins have the ability to give free gold. As another poster said, they also manipulate votes directly and create the illusion of user guided content. 2. The non-profit publisher question wasn't answered. 3. Chosing to moderate via users is still moderation.
- ksaj 5y agoJust to get off this strawman path, Reddit is owned by Advance Publications. I don't wish to go on a path about ways some things they do are not signatures of being a publisher, because they are publishers.
- literallyaduck 5y agoHow about nonprofit publishers?
- ksaj 5y agoYes if a "nonprofit publisher" made a tool to deal with something they found harmful, but then failed to deploy it because the harmful matter was so profitable (profitable in this usage doesn't always mean money. It can be any type of gain, such as user base, and stirring the pot to get users more active), I would say exactly the same thing I've been saying repeatedly here. Yes. Being non-profit doesn't absolve one of purposely letting harmful content by, and/or actively promoting it.