3 ms·
I think we can't actually know this unless Meta tries it. I think there are two main open questions: 1. With aggressive, noisy referrals to prosecution, and ba
by abeppu 1y ago
I think we can't actually know this unless Meta tries it. I think there are two main open questions:
1. With aggressive, noisy referrals to prosecution, and banning people who report others in bad faith, can you get these people to stop approaching kids on the platform? Can you get the human review burden to a tractable level b/c the rate of real issues and the rate of false reports is sufficiently low?
2. Can better moderation / safety measures _facilitate_ growth b/c people won't be scared or disgusted away from your product? We have plenty of people whose advice is "don't let your kids use their products unsupervised" and assuming you don't have the free time to _watch_ your kids use their product that quickly turns into "don't let your kids use their products". A safe platform that people _believe_ is safe might experience faster growth.
- freejazz 1y ago1. That presupposes the problem is bad faith referrals or that pedos aren't sufficiently aware they can get popped on FB. I don't think either are likely true. 2. I don't think the scalability issues are related to the size of the social network, so I don't think this is ever a relevant question, at least from my perspective. My point is that it would not be commercially reasonable for Meta to actually employ the number of people required to run down, verify and then forward reports.