6 ms·
No, this is the result of the laziness of social networks to look for automated solutions to solve at-scale (read: at the lowest cost) problems of their own mak
by mrpopo 4y ago
No, this is the result of the laziness of social networks to look for automated solutions to solve at-scale (read: at the lowest cost) problems of their own making.
More generally this is the result of giving free rein on global discourse to unregulated companies, who ultimately took full advantage and profiteed off of it.
- icare_1er 4y ago
- amanaplanacanal 4y agoRemoving incitements to violence seems like a good thing, and I would guess their customers (the advertisers) fully support it. The fact that they do it so badly is entirely on them.
- icare_1er 4y ago
- michaelmrose 4y agoYou needn't read or analyze everything just the stuff that is reported and since 90% of the problem is 1% of individuals if you can keep the same old folks from coming back you will ultimately have less to process. The logical thing is that the kind of human moderation that they actually needs costs money and you acquire said funds by charging monthly. This has the side effect of making it easy to permanently ban problem children via their address and or method of payment. One need not take prepaid cards either.
- Bakary 4y agoCensorious ideology is a minor point compared to the overall picture. Haphazard content removal wouldn't be an issue if the space wasn't controlled by a handful of private companies that routinely abuse their power.
- nradov 4y agoIs removing incitements to violence always a good thing? Apparently Facebook makes an exception when it comes to violence against the Russians invading Ukraine. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/exclusive-facebook-instagram-temporarily-allow-calls-violence-against-russians-2022-03-10/ https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/exclusive-facebook-inst... I do support the right of Ukrainians to defend their country. But I'm not comfortable with giving social media corporate employees the power to decide which violence is good and which is bad.
- icare_1er 4y agoFB has literally unbanned groups that were considered nearly terrorists several years ago (Azov), the second they became anti-Putin. Goes to show how grotesque those making the rules on Good and Bad are - I am sure we can find similar stuff regarding Saudi Arabia, which is pretty much a Daesh that succeeded at gaining power and keeping it.
- dane-pgp 4y ago> the left, with its eternal desire to monitor what everyone says or even thinks. Would you say that the NSA is a left wing organization then?
- anshorei 4y agoNo, but the opposition that the left once fronted to the NSA's surveillance has withered in the past ten years or so and (some) republicans have picked up the slack. Not too long ago the "war on terror" was considered to be the road to authoritarianism, now democrats are openly championing making it a new domestic war on terror. To those who opposed the war on terror from the beginning it's scary how quickly this opposition was abandoned by some once they could be the ones to wield it.
- acdw 4y agoI'm really bothered by the way you casually conflate an actual war in the middle east---the longest war in American history, by the way---with a metaphorical war on domestic violent extremism and neonazism. these are two very different things.
- anshorei 4y agoI used quotes to indicate I'm not talking about the war itself but about the surveillance state established in the aftermath of 9/11 (and shenanigans such as the pushing of mentally ill people into acts of terrorism they would never have committed without interference), which is the clear parallel politicians themselves want to draw when they say "war on domestic terror" (unless you believe they want to start another civil war by deploying troops in the states). Same as one would with "war on drugs".
- michaelmrose 4y ago
- philippejara 4y ago