4 ms·

That’s the point though, right? Encouraging illegal activity may not itself be illegal but moderators aren’t arbiters of the law, they’re protecting the integri

That’s the point though, right? Encouraging illegal activity may not itself be illegal but moderators aren’t arbiters of the law, they’re protecting the integrity of the website for the intended user base. If you want to allow people to encourage cocaine usage on your website, you have to be prepared to deal with law enforcement — because when someone follows the advice and dies with the website open on their computer, the website operators will get a call… — and not many people want to risk their entire company because “it’s legal to encourage people to take cocaine!” Moderation is hard and that example is… the perfect example. User reports are rarely accurate but still valuable.

ianferrel 3y ago
Certainly social media companies can choose to disallow suggestions that people take illegal actions. But that's not what the moderation policy for "illegal" content says. It says "Content that violates local or international laws or regulations." I don't know all the laws of all the countries, but my local laws make very little content illegal. Various types of obscenity, true threats, etc. "You should do drugs while you watch a movie about drugs" is definitely not one of those. It would be very easy, if that's what they want, to change it to "Content that encourages breaking local or international laws or regulations."
- oldtownroad 3y ago
  Visit a platform like LinkedIn, Twitter or Facebook and try to report content: the complex decision tree of what to report and why will be a good demonstration or how unintuitive the reality of content moderation is. Every user of every platform has a different understanding of even simple concepts, like “scam” and “spam”. Report reasons are not an accurate classification from a trained expert, they’re a thing a user chooses from a list that has to be designed to both provide valuable context to a moderator and capture the wide range of different understandings different users have. Suggesting that a reason should be added for the specific situation you’ve encountered demonstrates the naive understanding most people have of moderation and that’s what this game is good at. Platforms like Facebook and Twitter will have spent tens of thousands of people hours thinking about something as simple as the list of report reasons.
  - ianferrel 3y ago
    There are plenty of difficult judgment calls in content moderating. But the difference between "illegal content" and "content that promotes breaking the law" isn't really one of them to be made by the moderator. This is just bad instructions from the game maker.
    - ethanbond 3y ago
      You don’t think content moderators have to deal with: “hey kid, you should go shoot up a school?” Just cleanly not in their domain?
      - ianferrel 3y ago
        I think that content moderators often have to deal with that issue, and they are given rules like "remove posts that suggest that others commit violent acts" or something like that. And those are reasonable rules for moderators to enforce. But the rules that this game give do not include that rule, and it's a mark of a poorly designed game that the rule says "don't allow illegal content" and then when you (correctly!) apply that rule, the game says "you should have not allowed this because it's suggesting that someone do something illegal". Those aren't the same rule! ETA: Like lots of places have rules against reposting copyrighted content. But a post that said "Psst, kid, you should go download a movie from the Pirate Bay" should not be removed under that rule. Because the content of the post isn't copyrighted. If they also had a rule that said "don't encourage piracy", they could reasonably take it down under that rule.
        ethanbond 3y ago
        I see I see now what you’re saying. You’ve convinced me :)
        ianferrel 3y ago
        Always great to have a discussion with open-minded people. Cheers, internet buddy!
- gpm 3y ago
  You know, I'm nearly certain that that post does violate some "international law or regulation". Do I know which one? Nope, not a clue. But many countries have pretty weak free speech protections, and pretty strict drug laws. The idea that that violates none of them seems quite unlikely. The fact that your local laws have strong free speech protections doesn't really matter when the criteria is "local or international". If it violates north korea's, china's, or singapores laws it still violates that restriction.
  - DennisP 3y ago
    Maybe the policy should be rewritten then. If no content is allowed that violates any country's free speech restriction, then it probably means the site will remove criticism of the government of North Korea.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - rodgerd 3y ago
      Well, that's a problem that social media companies have with China and India, both of which are big markets. These are actual problems.
- intended 3y ago
  How is this different from moderation? This is exactly what I encountered - mods would debate these specific issues. Is the spirit of the rule or the word of the rule met. For global teams it’s even worse. The rules tend to be American, and they apply globally - which means that things that are illegal locally are given a pass, and this creates the same debate in the mod team. Moderation is phyrric. Today you come up with a good argument for behavior, tomorrow you churn your team and have 60% new people. The same argument comes up and its decided in the other direction.
commandlinefan 3y ago
> the website operators will get a call Then what we actually need isn't more content moderation, we need explicit laws explicitly _protecting_ website operators and any other publishers who are actually following the law.
- pixl97 3y ago
  I mean not really... sometimes some content just sucks and you don't want it on your site regardless of its legality. Start shitposting here on HN and see how long your posts hang around.
  - commandlinefan 3y ago
    But then that becomes a site owner editorial decision rather than a fear of legal reprisals decision.
NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
How can one protect the integrity of a website if they're undermining free speech rights and simultaneously derailing conversations and fragmenting communities while doing so? Though we didn't first define what "integrity" meant, it now seems impossible to formulate a meaning for it that isn't absurdly ironic given the actions performed to protect it. One could be forgiven if we were talking about a forum or website that exists in a totalitarian regime like China... better that there be some conversation than the only other option, none at all. But in the US or Europe or any other nation that considers itself even minimally enlightened? Moderation is not the solution. It may even be the problem.
- BHSPitMonkey 3y ago
  > How can one protect the integrity of a website if they're undermining free speech rights What free speech rights? You have no legal right to compel someone else to display your words on their website.
  - NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
    That's an interesting theory. I'm not sure you understand the implications of it though. Were it so simple, then it is plausible enough to construct a society where you have no free speech at all, anywhere, without your legal rights being violated. In fact, you all seem to be constructing that society even as we speak. Given the audience of this particular forum, more than a few of you are literally doing just that, rather than being accomplices and bystanders. I'm more of a free speech fundamentalist myself.
    - stonogo 3y ago
      Leaping from "I get to decide what's on my website" to "you've created a society" is pretty silly. Your argument is missing any meaningful linkages. It would be stronger if you articulated them instead of handwaving about plausibility. Personally I don't think social media speech is that important. It's ad-based, convenience-driven, and fickle. If it were to disappear people would just move to different media.

ianferrel 3y ago

Certainly social media companies can choose to disallow suggestions that people take illegal actions. But that's not what the moderation policy for "illegal" content says. It says "Content that violates local or international laws or regulations." I don't know all the laws of all the countries, but my local laws make very little content illegal. Various types of obscenity, true threats, etc. "You should do drugs while you watch a movie about drugs" is definitely not one of those. It would be very easy, if that's what they want, to change it to "Content that encourages breaking local or international laws or regulations."

oldtownroad 3y ago
Visit a platform like LinkedIn, Twitter or Facebook and try to report content: the complex decision tree of what to report and why will be a good demonstration or how unintuitive the reality of content moderation is. Every user of every platform has a different understanding of even simple concepts, like “scam” and “spam”. Report reasons are not an accurate classification from a trained expert, they’re a thing a user chooses from a list that has to be designed to both provide valuable context to a moderator and capture the wide range of different understandings different users have. Suggesting that a reason should be added for the specific situation you’ve encountered demonstrates the naive understanding most people have of moderation and that’s what this game is good at. Platforms like Facebook and Twitter will have spent tens of thousands of people hours thinking about something as simple as the list of report reasons.
- ianferrel 3y ago
  There are plenty of difficult judgment calls in content moderating. But the difference between "illegal content" and "content that promotes breaking the law" isn't really one of them to be made by the moderator. This is just bad instructions from the game maker.
  - ethanbond 3y ago
    You don’t think content moderators have to deal with: “hey kid, you should go shoot up a school?” Just cleanly not in their domain?
    - ianferrel 3y ago
      I think that content moderators often have to deal with that issue, and they are given rules like "remove posts that suggest that others commit violent acts" or something like that. And those are reasonable rules for moderators to enforce. But the rules that this game give do not include that rule, and it's a mark of a poorly designed game that the rule says "don't allow illegal content" and then when you (correctly!) apply that rule, the game says "you should have not allowed this because it's suggesting that someone do something illegal". Those aren't the same rule! ETA: Like lots of places have rules against reposting copyrighted content. But a post that said "Psst, kid, you should go download a movie from the Pirate Bay" should not be removed under that rule. Because the content of the post isn't copyrighted. If they also had a rule that said "don't encourage piracy", they could reasonably take it down under that rule.
      - ethanbond 3y ago
        I see I see now what you’re saying. You’ve convinced me :)
        ianferrel 3y ago
        Always great to have a discussion with open-minded people. Cheers, internet buddy!
gpm 3y ago
You know, I'm nearly certain that that post does violate some "international law or regulation". Do I know which one? Nope, not a clue. But many countries have pretty weak free speech protections, and pretty strict drug laws. The idea that that violates none of them seems quite unlikely. The fact that your local laws have strong free speech protections doesn't really matter when the criteria is "local or international". If it violates north korea's, china's, or singapores laws it still violates that restriction.
- DennisP 3y ago
  Maybe the policy should be rewritten then. If no content is allowed that violates any country's free speech restriction, then it probably means the site will remove criticism of the government of North Korea.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - rodgerd 3y ago
    Well, that's a problem that social media companies have with China and India, both of which are big markets. These are actual problems.
intended 3y ago
How is this different from moderation? This is exactly what I encountered - mods would debate these specific issues. Is the spirit of the rule or the word of the rule met. For global teams it’s even worse. The rules tend to be American, and they apply globally - which means that things that are illegal locally are given a pass, and this creates the same debate in the mod team. Moderation is phyrric. Today you come up with a good argument for behavior, tomorrow you churn your team and have 60% new people. The same argument comes up and its decided in the other direction.

commandlinefan 3y ago

> the website operators will get a call Then what we actually need isn't more content moderation, we need explicit laws explicitly _protecting_ website operators and any other publishers who are actually following the law.

pixl97 3y ago
I mean not really... sometimes some content just sucks and you don't want it on your site regardless of its legality. Start shitposting here on HN and see how long your posts hang around.
- commandlinefan 3y ago
  But then that becomes a site owner editorial decision rather than a fear of legal reprisals decision.

NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago

How can one protect the integrity of a website if they're undermining free speech rights and simultaneously derailing conversations and fragmenting communities while doing so? Though we didn't first define what "integrity" meant, it now seems impossible to formulate a meaning for it that isn't absurdly ironic given the actions performed to protect it. One could be forgiven if we were talking about a forum or website that exists in a totalitarian regime like China... better that there be some conversation than the only other option, none at all. But in the US or Europe or any other nation that considers itself even minimally enlightened? Moderation is not the solution. It may even be the problem.

BHSPitMonkey 3y ago
> How can one protect the integrity of a website if they're undermining free speech rights What free speech rights? You have no legal right to compel someone else to display your words on their website.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
  That's an interesting theory. I'm not sure you understand the implications of it though. Were it so simple, then it is plausible enough to construct a society where you have no free speech at all, anywhere, without your legal rights being violated. In fact, you all seem to be constructing that society even as we speak. Given the audience of this particular forum, more than a few of you are literally doing just that, rather than being accomplices and bystanders. I'm more of a free speech fundamentalist myself.
  - stonogo 3y ago
    Leaping from "I get to decide what's on my website" to "you've created a society" is pretty silly. Your argument is missing any meaningful linkages. It would be stronger if you articulated them instead of handwaving about plausibility. Personally I don't think social media speech is that important. It's ad-based, convenience-driven, and fickle. If it were to disappear people would just move to different media.