3 ms·
> By that measure, every other company is grossly overstaffed. Recent layoffs across a big chunk of the tech industry suggest this argument may have at least s
by Nextgrid 4y ago
> By that measure, every other company is grossly overstaffed.
Recent layoffs across a big chunk of the tech industry suggest this argument may have at least some truth in it.
> that company you say is more appropriately staffed contributed to a genocide that left tens of thousands dead
Contributing to a genocide has nothing to do with staffing levels and all to do with unhealthy incentives - the company makes its money on "engagement", and it turns out polarizing/divisive/violent/outrageous content generates a lot more of it than friends/family/cat pictures, so effectively moderating toxic content is actually against their bottom line and is only needed in extreme cases where the toxic content's negative PR impact outweighs what it will bring in "engagement".
- wpietri 4y agoThis is incorrect: > Contributing to a genocide has nothing to do with staffing levels Unless we just want to outlaw online forums, any provider is going to need to track and moderate harmful content. Note that even something as small as HN has a full-time moderator. That's just part of the business model these days. You're correct that moderation can run counter to short-term revenue gains. But it's much less clear that's true in the long term; as Facebook's reputation has worsened, its growth has slowed and its revenue has declined. Or on the other end of the scale, look at how the less restricted sites are doing. E.g., the 'chans are never going to move beyond a very small niche, and despite Twitter's troubles, nobody's expecting Gab to take the lead.