3 ms·

You write on a many-to-many social media website kept up by active content moderation...

by kleinsch 5y ago

brimble 5y ago
Twice in one thread! I'll just recycle this from my other post: "Yet you participate in society. Curious!"
- bhelkey 5y ago
  This doesn't apply here. One-to-one platforms exist and are popular. Also, I very much doubt that this conversation is required or in any way helps your career. There are alternatives, you chose to come on this site and participate in the comments. Your stated view isn't that many-to-many moderated social media website should do better, it is that many-to-many moderated social media websites shouldn't exist. Because this is a recreational activity, and because the alternatives you suggested are massively popular, 'Yet you participate in society. Curious!' does not apply.
  - brimble 5y ago
    It is not possible to use popular forms of communication to criticize popular forms of communication, in good faith. Message received loud and clear. It's not a good message, to put it about as nicely as I possibly can, but I've received it.
    - yunohn 5y ago
      That’s not what everyone else is saying, necessarily - it’s just that you think getting rid of FB et all will remove the need for content moderation, by forcing only one-to-one communication alternatives. None of that is reasonable or desirable by most humans.
      - brimble 5y ago
        > it’s just that you think getting rid of FB et all will remove the need for content moderation, Nooooo. I mean, yes, content moderation in the modern sense of "trying to mitigate the insanity that is randos posting a firehose of crap that's by-default instantly published to the world and which our stupid algorithms may well choose to shove in lots of people's faces" but no in the sense of selecting what one chooses to publish from among some submissions, which pre-dates the Internet sense of "content moderation" and doesn't seem to be a problem unless you have a publish-by-default-without-review policy that lets some amount of the crap get through, and barely vet your submitters at all. > None of that is reasonable or desirable by most humans. OK. So we choose—choose—to have a job category that will cause significant, lasting harm to some percentage of the workers doing it. But let's stop also insulting them by claiming we're doing it because we "have to".

You write on a many-to-many social media website kept up by active content moderation...

brimble 5y ago

Twice in one thread! I'll just recycle this from my other post: "Yet you participate in society. Curious!"

bhelkey 5y ago
This doesn't apply here. One-to-one platforms exist and are popular. Also, I very much doubt that this conversation is required or in any way helps your career. There are alternatives, you chose to come on this site and participate in the comments. Your stated view isn't that many-to-many moderated social media website should do better, it is that many-to-many moderated social media websites shouldn't exist. Because this is a recreational activity, and because the alternatives you suggested are massively popular, 'Yet you participate in society. Curious!' does not apply.
- brimble 5y ago
  It is not possible to use popular forms of communication to criticize popular forms of communication, in good faith. Message received loud and clear. It's not a good message, to put it about as nicely as I possibly can, but I've received it.
  - yunohn 5y ago
    That’s not what everyone else is saying, necessarily - it’s just that you think getting rid of FB et all will remove the need for content moderation, by forcing only one-to-one communication alternatives. None of that is reasonable or desirable by most humans.
    - brimble 5y ago
      > it’s just that you think getting rid of FB et all will remove the need for content moderation, Nooooo. I mean, yes, content moderation in the modern sense of "trying to mitigate the insanity that is randos posting a firehose of crap that's by-default instantly published to the world and which our stupid algorithms may well choose to shove in lots of people's faces" but no in the sense of selecting what one chooses to publish from among some submissions, which pre-dates the Internet sense of "content moderation" and doesn't seem to be a problem unless you have a publish-by-default-without-review policy that lets some amount of the crap get through, and barely vet your submitters at all. > None of that is reasonable or desirable by most humans. OK. So we choose—choose—to have a job category that will cause significant, lasting harm to some percentage of the workers doing it. But let's stop also insulting them by claiming we're doing it because we "have to".