5 ms·
I’m curious if X will manage to build up the moderation tools and automation without rehiring as many moderators as they used to have. Looking at the requiremen
by notimetorelax 3y ago
I’m curious if X will manage to build up the moderation tools and automation without rehiring as many moderators as they used to have. Looking at the requirements, some of those challenging - preventing fast dissemination of illegal content.
- fabian2k 3y agoIf the recent leak about the moderation policies for Twitter is correct, they don't actually want to remove that kind of content. So it might not be a matter of not having enough moderators right now but also an intentional policy decision to not sanction posts like this. I can't find an English source here and the original is paywalled, but from a German article (https://www.heise.de/news/Leak-Leugnung-des-Holocaust-und-mehr-darf-auf-X-Twitter-nicht-geloescht-werden-9576825.html https://www.heise.de/news/Leak-Leugnung-des-Holocaust-und-me...) summarizing the original reporting comes the following example of a tweet that is allegedly allowed now: > Next stop on our tour across Poland is Auschwitz. For Jews this is the last stop, please exit and take your luggage with you. It also mentions that threats of physical are no longer a reason for suspending accounts.
- SuperNinKenDo 3y ago[flagged]
- rsynnott 3y agoBloody hell, that was an _example of a Tweet that they were okay with, in training material_?!
- wongarsu 3y agoIt isn't inciting violence, and despite what people say about Germans we haven't actually outlawed humor. The joke might be tasteless or insensitive, but I doubt it's illegal. Of course many platforms wouldn't want such content on their platform, but there is also a vocal portion of people who have long called for platforms to behave more like town halls or public plazas, letting public discourse run uncensored as long as it isn't illegal. That's exactly what Musk seems to be doing
- rsynnott 3y agoOh, I’m not saying it’s illegal anywhere (maybe France? France is particularly aggressive on this sort of thing), but I would imagine that some Twitter salespeople will be having _interesting_ conversations with remaining large advertisers about this; it doesn’t really gel with previous positioning (at least to advertisers).
- wongarsu 3y agoMusk didn't buy the company to make it gel with its previous positioning, for better or for worse. But I agree, it will be interesting if Twitter manages to retain any of the large advertisers, and if how they plan to become profitable again.
- kypro 3y agoIf you're critical of X allowing people to recite jokes about the holocaust, how do you feel about Netflix platforming similar jokes about genocides? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJurYs12ay4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJurYs12ay4) Do you feel some jokes are too offensive to be said? Do you feel the EU/UK are correct in their stance that offensive (aka hateful) jokes should be illegal?
- troupo 3y ago"It was just a joke" isn't a legal defence when inciting hatred and violence. It's not legal even in the US (though IANAL). Context matters.
- pseudo0 3y agoIt is legal in the US as long as you are not intending and likely to incite imminent lawless action. Eg. To give a recent example, it's completely legal to chant "from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" despite some interpreting that chant to be calling for genocide. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/advocacy_of_illegal_action https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/advocacy_of_illegal_action
- troupo 3y agoYeah, that's why I'm saying context matters, and it's often up to the court to decide the context
- somenameforme 3y agoThe Supreme Court almost always judges in favor in free speech, including justices like Sotomayor. A place this frequently comes up is in rap where rappers frequently tend to rap about specific people and propose or fantasize about violent acts and even murder being committed against them. Eminem and his ex-wife Kim is a more or less well known example. And the Supreme Court has ruled, repeatedly, that it's 100% legal. A relevant court case is Elonis vs US [1]. He said some extremely explicit and provocative things, and the court ruled 8-1 in favor of throwing out his conviction. Interestingly enough, the sole dissenting vote was Clarence Thomas! [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elonis_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elonis_v._United_States
- ajsnigrutin 3y agoIt's a pretty bad dark joke, but considering it illegal? Especially by an american company, freedom of speech and all that?
- SiempreViernes 3y agoThe Germans are not famous for making jokes about killing Jews, and their market: their rules.
- ajsnigrutin 3y agoSure, but the germans did not outlaw jokes, even if they're germans. It's not calling for violence, it's not denying the holocaust (quite the oposite), so why would it be illegal?
- red_trumpet 3y agoIf they are operating in the EU, it doesn't matter if it is an american company or not.
- ajsnigrutin 3y agoSure, but can this joke itself be illegal? What law forbids a joke like this? It's not calling for violence, it's not denying the holocaust (just the opposite), it's just.. well.. a joke.
- andylynch 3y agoIt’s absolutely inciting violence, just using coded language.
- decremental 3y ago[dead]
- somenameforme 3y ago
- slim 3y agoHaving tried the "Added context" contributions, I think Twitter solved the moderation. It simply works. There's an abundance of free labor and it scales linearly with controversy/spread.
- Hamuko 3y ago>It simply works. Does it? Because I've seen it used to spread all sorts of bullshit, including against Musk/X. One case that comes to my mind when Musk wanted to make blocking to work the same as muting, and the false claim of it being against Apple's App Store rules was added as context.
- pjc50 3y agoBut that doesn't remove the content. It just sticks a label underneath it. And it's only on the most popular tweets.
- decremental 3y ago[dead]
- leadingthenet 3y agoThat’s a feature, not a bug.
- kcplate 3y ago