4 ms·

Removing 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 badl

Removing 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 ago
  You 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 ago
  Censorious 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 ago
Is 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 ago
  FB 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.

Removing 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 ago
You 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 ago
Censorious 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 ago

Is 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 ago
FB 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.