3 ms·

I think you're being overly generous here. He doesn't offer examples of the harassment he reported. Even if he had, he's comparing Twitter AI-flagged revenge p

I think you're being overly generous here. He doesn't offer examples of the harassment he reported. Even if he had, he's comparing Twitter AI-flagged revenge porn posts against user-reported harassment posts. The former is pretty clear cut and Twitter flagged it themselves. The latter may be a judgment call and was probably reported by the alleged target. His rudeness undercuts any such argument anyway, since we can't be sure the rep who reviewed his case didn't just see this and not waste his time on it. His main point seems to be "Twitter sucks." I agree. It sucks. So I don't use it.

lapcat 4y ago
> Even if he had, he's comparing Twitter AI-flagged revenge porn posts against user-reported harassment posts. The former is pretty clear cut and Twitter flagged it themselves. The latter may be a judgment call and was probably reported by the alleged target. I would consider humans manually reporting tweets to be much more reliable than AI flagging, especially given the bizarre false positive results we've seen from Twitter AI flagging. I've personally reported tweets, with the same kind of non-results. Mostly bots though rather than harassment. > His main point seems to be "Twitter sucks." I agree. It sucks. So I don't use it. Well, the author isn't using it right now either, intentionally.
- cgriswald 4y ago
  > I would consider humans manually reporting tweets to be much more reliable than AI flagging, especially given the bizarre false positive results we've seen from Twitter AI flagging. Sure. However, in this case Twitter is the one with the AI and the one deciding whether to trust a source. The case for child porn is virtually binary and even where it isn't, they're going to lean on the side of not allowing something. The case for harassment is reported by unknown humans who are probably personally involved, and whether something is or is not harassment is not always black and white. From Twitter's point of view, it probably makes more sense to trust their own AI. Here, the author hasn't provided specific examples of alleged harassment, so readers can't even make a judgment call.

lapcat 4y ago

> Even if he had, he's comparing Twitter AI-flagged revenge porn posts against user-reported harassment posts. The former is pretty clear cut and Twitter flagged it themselves. The latter may be a judgment call and was probably reported by the alleged target. I would consider humans manually reporting tweets to be much more reliable than AI flagging, especially given the bizarre false positive results we've seen from Twitter AI flagging. I've personally reported tweets, with the same kind of non-results. Mostly bots though rather than harassment. > His main point seems to be "Twitter sucks." I agree. It sucks. So I don't use it. Well, the author isn't using it right now either, intentionally.

cgriswald 4y ago
> I would consider humans manually reporting tweets to be much more reliable than AI flagging, especially given the bizarre false positive results we've seen from Twitter AI flagging. Sure. However, in this case Twitter is the one with the AI and the one deciding whether to trust a source. The case for child porn is virtually binary and even where it isn't, they're going to lean on the side of not allowing something. The case for harassment is reported by unknown humans who are probably personally involved, and whether something is or is not harassment is not always black and white. From Twitter's point of view, it probably makes more sense to trust their own AI. Here, the author hasn't provided specific examples of alleged harassment, so readers can't even make a judgment call.