Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Telling users why their content was removed reduces future issues [pdf]

shagunjhaver.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 154 posts

Re: Telling users why their content was removed reduces future issues [pdf]

#71

Post by coreyp_1 »

bchimp wrote: post #52

The paper (and I only read the abstract) is interesting, but as others have noted, fairly obvious. One thing that seems to be an assumption is that the "company" needs to provide the explanation. I think it is even better if the user provides the explanation. The assumption a user can't provide it is probably because we've all seen Terms of Service agreements that are totally opaque. Back in the day when I was doing…

I'm going through a related situation right now, but I'm the one who is the recipient of the negative action.

I posted a video of me playing the piano on YouTube. I got a copyright notification, that I was playing the melody to a song that someone else held the copyright for.

What's the problem? Well, the melody was published in 1886 (133 years ago) under the exact name identified in the copyright claim. The composer died in 1901 (118 years ago). It is not under copyright protection in any jurisdiction! Now, I'm having to appeal the copyright claim... not to YouTube, but to ASCAP (the company who is claiming the copyright in the first place)!!!! In fact, because it was MY arrangement and MY performance and MY production, I own the copyright to that video in every way legally recognized! In my mind, this is THEFT... from ME!

My point is, if YouTube had not at least told me what I'm being accused of, there is no way that I would have figured this out! I haven't done anything wrong! Someone else (ASCAP, ICE_CS) is fraudulently claiming copyright!

Under your system, I would have to "invent" things to confess to.

Of course, now the problem is that I have no power in this situation. ASCAP must agree that they don't want to monitize my video, and they have no incentive to do that. I have no protection or recourse. :(

And, for anyone who's interested, this still isn't resolved.

Re: Telling users why their content was removed reduces future issues [pdf]

#72

Post by jimbokun »

otterley wrote: post #16
haunter wrote: post #6

Otoh reddit mods has 0 accountability, "if you don't like them make your own sub" basically that's the official stance

Sounds reasonable to me. Reddit is not and never was a democracy; at best it’s a benevolent dictatorship - just like every other social media platform. It costs nothing to start a new subreddit if you want different rules. And if lots of Redditors agree with you, they’ll happily follow you.

> It costs nothing to start a new subreddit if you want different rules. And if lots of Redditors agree with you, they’ll happily follow you.

Which certainly doesn't violate any laws.

The unintended consequence, however, is more isolation and less engagement with ideas you don't already subscribe to or people you don't normally encounter.

This is not a Reddit specific problem of course, it applies to Twitter and Facebook or any other social media platform. But it's concerning and difficult to find any easy and obvious solutions.

Re: Telling users why their content was removed reduces future issues [pdf]

#73

Post by mattnewton »

jakobegger wrote: post #70
jstanley wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It also only works if they agree that they actually did violate your TOS. I assume the response "sorry, I looked at your TOS and don't see the problem" would not result in getting their account reinstated.

That's probably a good thing. If people can't figure out which rule they broke, then they don't understand the rules, and they'll probably break them again soon. (of course, if everyone complains that they don't see the problem, then maybe it's the mod that doesn't understand the rules, or the rules are ambiguous)

Or, its possible they should be able to appeal it because the company got something wrong, and the violation isn't there. Besides this feels excessively paternalistic.

Re: Telling users why their content was removed reduces future issues [pdf]

#74

Post by bchimp »

jstanley wrote: post #64
bchimp wrote: post #52

The paper (and I only read the abstract) is interesting, but as others have noted, fairly obvious. One thing that seems to be an assumption is that the "company" needs to provide the explanation. I think it is even better if the user provides the explanation. The assumption a user can't provide it is probably because we've all seen Terms of Service agreements that are totally opaque. Back in the day when I was doing…

It also only works if they agree that they actually did violate your TOS. I assume the response "sorry, I looked at your TOS and don't see the problem" would not result in getting their account reinstated.

This assumes we blocked people for no reason just to engage them, or that there was some automated blocking or something. At the time, all this stuff was manual, so once someone was blocked, it was because there was a real problem.

Now, every once in awhile we would get the "johnny logged into my computer and did it, not me." For technical and privacy reasons, we can't really block people, just computers. So, ya, they stayed blocked.

Is it perfectly fair? Nope. But simplifying a TOS definitely cut down on arguing with people, which was a win for us.

Re: Telling users why their content was removed reduces future issues [pdf]

#75

Post by jimmaswell »

nkrisc wrote: post #53
EndXA wrote: post #3

Study title: "Does Transparency in Moderation Really Matter?: User Behavior After Content Removal Explanations on Reddit". Abstract: > When posts are removed on a social media platform, users may or may not receive an explanation. What kinds of explanations are provided? Do those explanations matter? Using a sample of 32 million Reddit posts, we characterize the removal explanations that are provided to Redditors, an…

My interpretation of this is most people don't intend to break the community's rules. That is to say, most people aren't sociopathic trolls. Most people don't want their posts removed. Informing them of what rules they broke will help them about breaking those rules again, assuming they wish to not break rules, which it appears is generally the case. I've had posts removed on subs for breaking some arcane rule before…

Too many subs have completely ridiculous rules and tyrants for mods. Some subreddit about interesting pictures didn't want screencaps so they made the rule say "screens" and then removed posts involving any screen anywhere even if the contents weren't the focus, like a cool breakage pattern. Such a sad state of existence salivating at such a tiny amount of power that you ruin a subreddit for everyone removing valid posts. I honestly wish subreddits had no mods at all, only spam removal allowed, after having had to deal with the bad mods that ruin the site.

Re: Telling users why their content was removed reduces future issues [pdf]

#76

Post by nokcha »

coreyp_1 wrote: post #71
bchimp wrote: post #52

The paper (and I only read the abstract) is interesting, but as others have noted, fairly obvious. One thing that seems to be an assumption is that the "company" needs to provide the explanation. I think it is even better if the user provides the explanation. The assumption a user can't provide it is probably because we've all seen Terms of Service agreements that are totally opaque. Back in the day when I was doing…

I'm going through a related situation right now, but I'm the one who is the recipient of the negative action. I posted a video of me playing the piano on YouTube. I got a copyright notification, that I was playing the melody to a song that someone else held the copyright for. What's the problem? Well, the melody was published in 1886 (133 years ago) under the exact name identified in the copyright claim. The composer…

>I have no ... recourse.

In theory, you could sue ASCAP for damages and/or injunctive relief. Perhaps for libel, for grossly negligently communicating a false and disparaging claim about you to YouTube. Perhaps for tortious interference with business relations. But unfortunately, winning such a lawsuit likely requires an expensive lawyer, and sometimes you can only get as much justice as you can afford to buy.

Re: Telling users why their content was removed reduces future issues [pdf]

#77

Post by megous »

eloisant wrote: post #61
bchimp wrote: post #52

The paper (and I only read the abstract) is interesting, but as others have noted, fairly obvious. One thing that seems to be an assumption is that the "company" needs to provide the explanation. I think it is even better if the user provides the explanation. The assumption a user can't provide it is probably because we've all seen Terms of Service agreements that are totally opaque. Back in the day when I was doing…

Sounds like the old cop tactic to get users to confess violations you didn't know about...

I was about to comment to say the same, haha. It's pretty nasty. You have a broken blinker, and now you're going to have more trouble for speeding too, because you guessed wrong.

Re: Telling users why their content was removed reduces future issues [pdf]

#78

Post by megous »

bchimp wrote: post #52

The paper (and I only read the abstract) is interesting, but as others have noted, fairly obvious. One thing that seems to be an assumption is that the "company" needs to provide the explanation. I think it is even better if the user provides the explanation. The assumption a user can't provide it is probably because we've all seen Terms of Service agreements that are totally opaque. Back in the day when I was doing…

Originator of the action should be explaining it (even if decision making is automated and the decision making system is not open), seems pretty obvious as noone else can realy know, only guess.

Re: Telling users why their content was removed reduces future issues [pdf]

#80

Post by coreyp_1 »

nokcha wrote: post #76
coreyp_1 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm going through a related situation right now, but I'm the one who is the recipient of the negative action. I posted a video of me playing the piano on YouTube. I got a copyright notification, that I was playing the melody to a song that someone else held the copyright for. What's the problem? Well, the melody was published in 1886 (133 years ago) under the exact name identified in the copyright claim. The composer…

>I have no ... recourse. In theory, you could sue ASCAP for damages and/or injunctive relief. Perhaps for libel, for grossly negligently communicating a false and disparaging claim about you to YouTube. Perhaps for tortious interference with business relations. But unfortunately, winning such a lawsuit likely requires an expensive lawyer, and sometimes you can only get as much justice as you can afford to buy.

Exactly why I described it as having no recourse. :/
Post reply on HN