3 ms·

It depends on the form of content moderation. There is a risk in automated moderating being too stifling. There is also a risk of moderation pushing people on t

by rocqua 5y ago

It depends on the form of content moderation. There is a risk in automated moderating being too stifling. There is also a risk of moderation pushing people on the fence into a victim role. Similarly, content moderation past the excesses becomes close to editatorialzing. That is a difficult and very subjective job not generally suited for tech companies.

mschuster91 5y ago
> That is a difficult and very subjective job not generally suited for tech companies. It is, but given the scale these tech companies can reach we have seen way too much evidence that moderation is required for a stable society. People have been literally lynched because of viral fake postings [1] on messengers, not to mention the entire clusterfuck that is the coronavirus pandemic and the influence of propaganda peddlers and profiteers. [1]: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-44897714 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-44897714
- sneak 5y ago
  Pop the stack. Social media doesn't cause lynchings, society does. Social media amplifies society's existing social habits. Censorship is not how you fix a society's bad habits. Correspondingly, censoring social media is not how you fix society's amplified bad habits. You can actually make a cohesive argument that algorithmic, "if it bleeds, it leads" timelines are in fact censorship (as they push down more recent, but less titillating/outrageous content), and that this algorithmic censorship of less outrageous but more recent/potentially balancing content is the basis for increased social fervor. Ultimately, the solution to speech you don't like is more speech. When that additional speech is deprioritized to the point where no one sees it in practice, or is hard censored outright, the societal balancing functions can't work.
  - zozbot234 5y ago
    > Social media doesn't cause lynchings Social media causes lynchings and worse when it algorithmically amplifies the most outrageous, divisive and controversial content in a bid to maximize "engagement". "Moderation" and "healthy community" policies are the band-aid. There's no such thing as "neutral" social media when these algorithms are used, it's an oxymoron.
  - mschuster91 5y ago
    > Social media amplifies society's existing social habits. No. Social media, particularly ones where algorithms determine which content is shown to users, amplifies the content that is most likely to see more eyeballs or maximize other arbitrary metrics of engagement. And that means content that drives outrage of any form. > Censorship is not how you fix a society's bad habits. If I go on the city plaza and deny the Holocaust, I will probably get Spencer'd in the face and then dragged away by police for causing mischief (or in Europe, for Holocaust denial which is a crime here). Will you call that censorship, too? I guess not. But on most social media, I can deny the Holocaust, call for the murder of politicians or virologists all day long without moderation or any consequences - and any calls on Facebook, Twitter, Telegram or whatever to put a stop to this hate get decried as "censorship". > Ultimately, the solution to speech you don't like is more speech. It should not be the job of unpaid individual citizens to do the job of the government which we pay taxes for. We citizens pay taxes so that police keeps the physical city plaza clean of crime and nutjobs, why should a digital city plaza like Facebook be exempt of the rules? This divergence between the realities of the digital and the analog worlds is what is the problem.
    - sneak 5y ago
      > Will you call that censorship, too? I guess not. Yes, that is also absolutely censorship. It's a shame that people don't have free expression in Europe.

by rocqua 5y ago

mschuster91 5y ago

> That is a difficult and very subjective job not generally suited for tech companies. It is, but given the scale these tech companies can reach we have seen way too much evidence that moderation is required for a stable society. People have been literally lynched because of viral fake postings [1] on messengers, not to mention the entire clusterfuck that is the coronavirus pandemic and the influence of propaganda peddlers and profiteers. [1]: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-44897714 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-44897714

sneak 5y ago
Pop the stack. Social media doesn't cause lynchings, society does. Social media amplifies society's existing social habits. Censorship is not how you fix a society's bad habits. Correspondingly, censoring social media is not how you fix society's amplified bad habits. You can actually make a cohesive argument that algorithmic, "if it bleeds, it leads" timelines are in fact censorship (as they push down more recent, but less titillating/outrageous content), and that this algorithmic censorship of less outrageous but more recent/potentially balancing content is the basis for increased social fervor. Ultimately, the solution to speech you don't like is more speech. When that additional speech is deprioritized to the point where no one sees it in practice, or is hard censored outright, the societal balancing functions can't work.
- zozbot234 5y ago
  > Social media doesn't cause lynchings Social media causes lynchings and worse when it algorithmically amplifies the most outrageous, divisive and controversial content in a bid to maximize "engagement". "Moderation" and "healthy community" policies are the band-aid. There's no such thing as "neutral" social media when these algorithms are used, it's an oxymoron.
- mschuster91 5y ago
  > Social media amplifies society's existing social habits. No. Social media, particularly ones where algorithms determine which content is shown to users, amplifies the content that is most likely to see more eyeballs or maximize other arbitrary metrics of engagement. And that means content that drives outrage of any form. > Censorship is not how you fix a society's bad habits. If I go on the city plaza and deny the Holocaust, I will probably get Spencer'd in the face and then dragged away by police for causing mischief (or in Europe, for Holocaust denial which is a crime here). Will you call that censorship, too? I guess not. But on most social media, I can deny the Holocaust, call for the murder of politicians or virologists all day long without moderation or any consequences - and any calls on Facebook, Twitter, Telegram or whatever to put a stop to this hate get decried as "censorship". > Ultimately, the solution to speech you don't like is more speech. It should not be the job of unpaid individual citizens to do the job of the government which we pay taxes for. We citizens pay taxes so that police keeps the physical city plaza clean of crime and nutjobs, why should a digital city plaza like Facebook be exempt of the rules? This divergence between the realities of the digital and the analog worlds is what is the problem.
  - sneak 5y ago
    > Will you call that censorship, too? I guess not. Yes, that is also absolutely censorship. It's a shame that people don't have free expression in Europe.