4 ms·

There are two big reasons for content moderation: to grow (or at least maintain) the userbase, and to protect the investors who own the platform. Your idea wou

There are two big reasons for content moderation: to grow (or at least maintain) the userbase, and to protect the investors who own the platform. Your idea would work wonderfully for the first point, assuming you had enough censors devoting enough time to the social networks you care about. If this scheme was adopted, people would be able to craft the perfect echo chamber, seeing only what they want to see, being exposed only to the ideas they want to think about. It would be the current algorithms on steroids. But it would totally fail for the second point. When $social_media_empire deplatforms someone calling for violence against the Jews, it's not (entirely) out of altruism, it's because their investors don't want to see headlines declaring $social_media_empire as the home of violent, holocaust-denying sociopaths. It's not enough to hide $antisocial_behvior from people that don't want to encounter it, it's important to the platform that the platform not be seen as a home for that type of content. So, at some point, it becomes necessary to hide content even from the people who want to see it.

makeitdouble 4y ago
You are right, but I think weighting too much on the extreme. Inciting violence or holocaust denying is outside the spectrum of what can be accepted on any moderation platform (outside of the sheer legal issues, also for the reasons you are citing). Some people want those kind of speeches represented as well, but it just won’t happen, at least not on any platform with public and international exposure. With anything illegal off the table, sthe debate is more on how to deal with things ranging from flat earthers, hate on fat, furries, sex, anti-capitalism, hyper-capitalism, bigotry, grifting, crypto bros etc In that “somewhat legal but possibily be deeply disturbing or unwelcoming from some” fringe, advertisers will also gain from being allowed to filter on what moderation strategies people are choosing. Basically it gives them ways to dictate specific rules for their content (e.g a diet product could be fine being advertised next to sex and fat-hate but want nothing to do with crypto-bros, etc.)

makeitdouble 4y ago

You are right, but I think weighting too much on the extreme. Inciting violence or holocaust denying is outside the spectrum of what can be accepted on any moderation platform (outside of the sheer legal issues, also for the reasons you are citing). Some people want those kind of speeches represented as well, but it just won’t happen, at least not on any platform with public and international exposure. With anything illegal off the table, sthe debate is more on how to deal with things ranging from flat earthers, hate on fat, furries, sex, anti-capitalism, hyper-capitalism, bigotry, grifting, crypto bros etc In that “somewhat legal but possibily be deeply disturbing or unwelcoming from some” fringe, advertisers will also gain from being allowed to filter on what moderation strategies people are choosing. Basically it gives them ways to dictate specific rules for their content (e.g a diet product could be fine being advertised next to sex and fat-hate but want nothing to do with crypto-bros, etc.)