3 ms·

> My engineer brain wants to solve this by giving users more visibility into moderation decisions. Visibility into moderation decisions makes them more gameabl

> My engineer brain wants to solve this by giving users more visibility into moderation decisions. Visibility into moderation decisions makes them more gameable/exploitable/circumventable. The whole purpose of moderation is to remove unwanted speech; justifying the fairness of such removal is only secondary, and can be elided if it interferes with the primary goal. Hence "You have been banned because your posts violate our Terms of Service" messages with no further explanation, and things like shadowbanning. It sucks to be on the receiving end of these things but they make online communities much more pleasant.

infotainment 3y ago
Exactly; consider the "censorship" that everyone generally agrees with, spam filtering. If the precise nature of the spam filter is known (keyword lists, etc), then it becomes much easier to design emails that avoid being filtered.
- fulafel 3y ago
  Spam filtering is the opposite problem of people trying to communicate their views on mass killings of civilians in an important respect: In the case of spam, you don't want the spammers to reformulate their message to get past the filters. In the case of mass killings, you do want to allow the social media users to tone down their writing.
  - infotainment 3y ago
    Sounds good in theory, but in practice I think you’d ultimately just incentive the kind of behaviors you already see on TikTok: users would just add asterisks to filtered words, instead of changing anything of substance.
anigbrowl 3y ago
This is basically an argument for getting rid of laws and ruling by fiat, with a judicial process that amounts to repeating 'you know what you did' whether or not that is honest.
- ImHereToVote 3y ago
  If I have a boot on my throat, it better be privately owned.
- moqmar 3y ago
  Communities are moderated based on how good you feel there, if it's the most ad-friendly, how good everyone stays on-topic, or other mostly social & subjective criteria. Judicial systems aren't about any of those things.

infotainment 3y ago

Exactly; consider the "censorship" that everyone generally agrees with, spam filtering. If the precise nature of the spam filter is known (keyword lists, etc), then it becomes much easier to design emails that avoid being filtered.

fulafel 3y ago
Spam filtering is the opposite problem of people trying to communicate their views on mass killings of civilians in an important respect: In the case of spam, you don't want the spammers to reformulate their message to get past the filters. In the case of mass killings, you do want to allow the social media users to tone down their writing.
- infotainment 3y ago
  Sounds good in theory, but in practice I think you’d ultimately just incentive the kind of behaviors you already see on TikTok: users would just add asterisks to filtered words, instead of changing anything of substance.

anigbrowl 3y ago

This is basically an argument for getting rid of laws and ruling by fiat, with a judicial process that amounts to repeating 'you know what you did' whether or not that is honest.

ImHereToVote 3y ago
If I have a boot on my throat, it better be privately owned.
moqmar 3y ago
Communities are moderated based on how good you feel there, if it's the most ad-friendly, how good everyone stays on-topic, or other mostly social & subjective criteria. Judicial systems aren't about any of those things.