4 ms·

> content moderation is complicated, error-prone, and expensive I think the fact-checking part is pretty straightforward. What's outrageous is that the content

> content moderation is complicated, error-prone, and expensive I think the fact-checking part is pretty straightforward. What's outrageous is that the content moderators judge content subjectively, labeling perfect discussions as misinformation, hate speech, and etc. That's where the censorship starts.

nicce 2y ago
> That's where the censorship starts. It also starts when there is no third-party anymore. Where is the middle line?
- hintymad 2y ago
  I thought there would be community notes. And how would third-party work? The Stanford doctor was banned from X because he posted peer-reviewed papers that challenge the effectiveness of masks (or vaccines)? I certainly don't want to see that level of hysteria.
  - autoexec 2y ago
    > The Stanford doctor was banned from X because he posted peer-reviewed papers that challenging the effectiveness of masks (or vaccines)? I certainly don't want to see that level of hysteria. Not familiar with that specific case, though generally I'm not a fan a bans. Fact checks are great though. There have been peer reviewed papers about midi-chlorians too (https://www.irishnews.com/magazine/science/2017/07/24/news/a-blogger-fooled-three-scientific-journals-into-publishing-a-fake-star-wars-themed-paper-1091631/ https://www.irishnews.com/magazine/science/2017/07/24/news/a...), but I'd sure hope that if someone brought it up in a discussion they'd be fact checked.
- raxxor 2y ago
  I do not follow, I do not believe this is correct. Third parties introduce the censorship.
AlotOfReading 2y ago
How do you avoid judging actual human discussions subjectively? I remember being a forum moderator and struggling with exactly the same issues. No matter what guidelines we'd set, there'd be essentially legitimate discussions that were way over the line superficially, and on the other you'd have neo-nazis acting in ways that weren't technically bad, but were clearly leading there. Facebook moderators have an even harder job than that because the inherent scale of the platform prevents the kinds of personal insights and contextual understanding I had.
- hintymad 2y ago
  My answer is don't. If something is subjective, then why bother? "Words are violence" is such a bullshit.
  - AlotOfReading 2y ago
    Okay, but you're saying this on a platform where the moderator (dang) follows intentionally vague and subjective guidelines, presumably because you like the environment more here than some unmoderated howling void elsewhere on the Internet.
    - hintymad 2y ago
      Good point, and thanks. I have to admit I don't have a good answer to this. Maybe what dang needs to assess can be better defined or qualified? Like we can't define porn but we know it when we see it? On the other hand, assessing something is offensive or is hate speech is so subjective that people simply weaponize them, intentionally or unintentionally.
      - int_19h 2y ago
        > we can't define porn but we know it when we see it? But we don't, though. Or rather, there's broad consensus over most of it, but there's plenty of disagreement over where exactly the dividing line is.
    - 2y ago

nicce 2y ago

> That's where the censorship starts. It also starts when there is no third-party anymore. Where is the middle line?

hintymad 2y ago
I thought there would be community notes. And how would third-party work? The Stanford doctor was banned from X because he posted peer-reviewed papers that challenge the effectiveness of masks (or vaccines)? I certainly don't want to see that level of hysteria.
- autoexec 2y ago
  > The Stanford doctor was banned from X because he posted peer-reviewed papers that challenging the effectiveness of masks (or vaccines)? I certainly don't want to see that level of hysteria. Not familiar with that specific case, though generally I'm not a fan a bans. Fact checks are great though. There have been peer reviewed papers about midi-chlorians too (https://www.irishnews.com/magazine/science/2017/07/24/news/a-blogger-fooled-three-scientific-journals-into-publishing-a-fake-star-wars-themed-paper-1091631/ https://www.irishnews.com/magazine/science/2017/07/24/news/a...), but I'd sure hope that if someone brought it up in a discussion they'd be fact checked.
raxxor 2y ago
I do not follow, I do not believe this is correct. Third parties introduce the censorship.

AlotOfReading 2y ago

How do you avoid judging actual human discussions subjectively? I remember being a forum moderator and struggling with exactly the same issues. No matter what guidelines we'd set, there'd be essentially legitimate discussions that were way over the line superficially, and on the other you'd have neo-nazis acting in ways that weren't technically bad, but were clearly leading there. Facebook moderators have an even harder job than that because the inherent scale of the platform prevents the kinds of personal insights and contextual understanding I had.

hintymad 2y ago
My answer is don't. If something is subjective, then why bother? "Words are violence" is such a bullshit.
- AlotOfReading 2y ago
  Okay, but you're saying this on a platform where the moderator (dang) follows intentionally vague and subjective guidelines, presumably because you like the environment more here than some unmoderated howling void elsewhere on the Internet.
  - hintymad 2y ago
    Good point, and thanks. I have to admit I don't have a good answer to this. Maybe what dang needs to assess can be better defined or qualified? Like we can't define porn but we know it when we see it? On the other hand, assessing something is offensive or is hate speech is so subjective that people simply weaponize them, intentionally or unintentionally.
    - int_19h 2y ago
      > we can't define porn but we know it when we see it? But we don't, though. Or rather, there's broad consensus over most of it, but there's plenty of disagreement over where exactly the dividing line is.
  - 2y ago