4 ms·
On the other hand, I’ve reported posts for using racial slurs (you know the one) and for calling for genocide … and been cheerfully told they didn’t break any r
by smcl 4y ago
On the other hand, I’ve reported posts for using racial slurs (you know the one) and for calling for genocide … and been cheerfully told they didn’t break any rules but that I can block the user if my feelings were hurt. These sites aren’t moderated ideologically, they’re moderated randomly
- gpm 4y agoAnd really, random moderation is inevitable at scale. It's always going to be a judgment call made by different people in different moods. You can spend more money to reduce the std deviation, and spend less while increasing it, but you can't eliminate the randomness.
- Beltalowda 4y agoEvery time I've reported something it's taken well over a week for Twitter to respond; all denied, and all of them were very clear-cut cases IMO (I don't have the exact phrasings at hand, but all involved people fantasising about smashing someone's face in with a brick because they didn't like something they said). I don't expect moderation to be 100% consistent or 100% perfect, but now it just seems like such a random unpredictable crapshoot that it's pretty broken IMO.
- ghostpepper 4y agoI'm not sure what country you're in, or what the law is in the US, but I think there's a difference between saying "I want to to smash their face in with a brick" and "someone should smash their face in with a brick" It seems to me that the call to action or lack thereof is salient. That being said I have no idea if this was the reason why it was allowed. There's no transparency.
- Beltalowda 4y agoI agree there's a (subtle) difference, and legally this difference may certainly matter, but everyone knows what's intended and IMO neither have their place on a platform where "people have a free and safe space to talk" (from Twitter's "About" page).