3 ms·
I suspect this kind of problem is unavoidable when a large fraction of the world uses a centralized many-to-many communication platform. Moderation is always go
by Zak 4y ago
I suspect this kind of problem is unavoidable when a large fraction of the world uses a centralized many-to-many communication platform. Moderation is always going to be a cost center for such a platform and there's a big gap between good enough moderation to prevent a mass exodus and what most of us would likely call good.
Using decentralized tools might improve the situation.
- nfriedly 4y agoI think the problem is less that they temporarily banned his account, it's more that the language of the message was completely false. There was no "careful review", and it was not permanent. Also, as others have pointed out, "suspension" implies that the interruption is temporary, so "permanently suspended" doesn't even make sense.
- themitigating 4y agoIf you wanted to suspend a user's account for a period of time you would say "suspended for two weeks". What if you wanted to suspend a user forever but it might have been a mistake or you might change your mind?
- nfriedly 4y agoI think that just "suspended" would be more appropriate than "permanently suspended". Although, it seems that the reality of the situation is closer to "your account is permanently banned unless you manage to raise enough fuss that an actual human looks at it."
- Zak 4y agoIt just reads like generic corporate speak to me. All corporate decisions are "careful" and adverse actions have names that sound milder than they are.
- impossiblefork 4y agoIt doesn't need to be centralized though, and I think centralization is the cause of both the moral problems (political bans, censorship, etc.) and the difficulties running these things. Without centralization it's just some kind of trust network, and since the messages are open it's a much easier problem to filter away unwanted material than to deal with things like e-mail spam. The reason people don't is simply that they want power over political discourse, so they accept what part of these problems are problems for them and are then happy for the other problems.
- themitigating 4y agoI'm not sure if you meant it the way I read it but "people" could also be users. The bigger the service the bigger the audience. Also, who was banned from twitter because of their politics?
- Zak 4y ago> The bigger the service the bigger the audience. This is not true with decentralized services. If, for example, I have a Mastodon account and you want to follow me, we don't have to use the same service provider. You don't even have to use Mastodon software. You could use something else that speaks ActivityPub like Pixelfed or Friendica.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- themitigating 4y agoWhy would a decentralized system not run into these problems?
- Zak 4y agoCompetition, mostly. If users can shop around for different service providers or even self-host, the approach to moderation can be an important differentiator.
- ladyattis 4y agoA better option is to legally require all web sites that provide third party distribution of content to hire actual human beings, with a livable wage, to moderate content rather than leaving it to users to target and report everything on their own. If they don't want to handle the cost of having a labor pool then they can go into some other sector like investment banking or whatever. Social media isn't a labor free sector of business.