3 ms·
What they’ve said basically is: we can’t possibly review all ads to ensure we don’t encourage violence, so between the choices: a) review all ads, charge per r
by allie1 5y ago
What they’ve said basically is:
we can’t possibly review all ads to ensure we don’t encourage violence, so between the choices: a) review all ads, charge per request or just operate slower until our automation is 100% accurate OR b) accept that 0.005% of the time, ads promoting violence and worse will get posted, and cause harm.
- elliekelly 5y agoIt’s mind boggling that they don’t have some filter words that automatically flag an ad as potentially higher-risk for a policy violation and so require human review. Like the word “kill”, for example, seems like a word that should be flagged and yet according to the article it was approved. It doesn’t have to be all-or-nothing. I’m sure Facebook has plenty of intelligent people who are more than capable of creating a risk-based review process that balances the effort vs the outcome better than whatever they’re currently doing.
- allie1 5y agoIndeed. Even a “any ad mentioning these words goes for review” makes a difference. it has to be a culture issue inside fb. So much of this is just wrong, to go on without much scrutiny and get to this point is just mind boggling.