321–330 of 577 posts
This is how big tech does damage to humans. Love it or hate it, the online world is our current public square. A public square, in the united states, has typically been an area where people can shout out their concerns or whatever they want to anyone who can listen and the government cannot stop it. Currently, our public squares are owned by private megacorporations that not only ban people for reasons many people ag…
I'm in Thailand and just get this message: We've discontinued servicing users from your location and are thereby preventing access to any of the websites owned and operated by ZAM Network, LLC DBA Fanbyte (the owner of Fanbyte.com): This decision is ultimately one we were forced to make due to the number of visitors from your region when compared to the operational costs necessary to continue providing access there.…
This is how big tech does damage to humans. Love it or hate it, the online world is our current public square. A public square, in the united states, has typically been an area where people can shout out their concerns or whatever they want to anyone who can listen and the government cannot stop it. Currently, our public squares are owned by private megacorporations that not only ban people for reasons many people ag…
[deleted]
It seems like the problem with many of these tech companies (and many modern companies in general) is that they've scaled faster than they have the ability to operate properly. "How can we possibly moderate properly without AI?" is really just another way of saying "We don't want to pay the money it's going to cost to moderate effectively and we're going to cross our fingers that we can solve problems caused by techn…
It's not "want", Twitter (or youtube, or facebook, etc. etc.) can't in a million years afford content moderation because of the sheer firehose of content. They'd literally have to employ everyone on the planet to get enough moderators in every language for every tweet, post, video, etc. on the platform. And then only one company would have enough moderators. Moderators are a finite resource, there aren't even enough…
Of course this might deprive them of the ability to censor at will.
Seems like additional signals should play into a confidence score though: how new is your account, what content is your account viewing, etc.
It seems like the problem with many of these tech companies (and many modern companies in general) is that they've scaled faster than they have the ability to operate properly. "How can we possibly moderate properly without AI?" is really just another way of saying "We don't want to pay the money it's going to cost to moderate effectively and we're going to cross our fingers that we can solve problems caused by techn…
It's not "want", Twitter (or youtube, or facebook, etc. etc.) can't in a million years afford content moderation because of the sheer firehose of content. They'd literally have to employ everyone on the planet to get enough moderators in every language for every tweet, post, video, etc. on the platform. And then only one company would have enough moderators. Moderators are a finite resource, there aren't even enough…
Twitter is an abysmal shithole of bad software engineering and bad webshit policy, which seems to be a requirement to be a website that serves public utility. I also so happened to rant about idiot moderation policies just 2 days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32174538 I can write this rant every day. Also, this is the first thing that comes to mind when hearing "AI moderation". What we are seeing here is…
It seems like the problem with many of these tech companies (and many modern companies in general) is that they've scaled faster than they have the ability to operate properly. "How can we possibly moderate properly without AI?" is really just another way of saying "We don't want to pay the money it's going to cost to moderate effectively and we're going to cross our fingers that we can solve problems caused by techn…
It's not "want", Twitter (or youtube, or facebook, etc. etc.) can't in a million years afford content moderation because of the sheer firehose of content. They'd literally have to employ everyone on the planet to get enough moderators in every language for every tweet, post, video, etc. on the platform. And then only one company would have enough moderators. Moderators are a finite resource, there aren't even enough…
I know online content platforms are wildly different than other industries, which is why these problems exist at all. We don’t seem to have good solutions yet. But we wouldn’t have any issue declaring that any other industry that couldn’t afford to do the “quality control” well enough isn’t a sustainable industry.
Like, come on. I agree that the processes and moderation models could be better, especially at the appeals phase, but we don't see the other side of the battle twitter content moderation is fighting.
Even if their doing a stellar job statistics-wise, we probably wouldn't know because PR wouldn't want a blog post about how a twitter hovers on the brink of becoming a cesspool.
I'm less sympathetic when inhumane moderation policies ruin lives as we see a lot of with google properties (YT, gmail), but this instance is pretty far from such a case.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
AFAIK, most of the moderation on Reddit is done by unpaid humans, not AI. Reddit isn't perfect, of course, but their approach does scale.
Moderators on Reddit are extremely petty and vindictive and I have hypothesized for a long time that this is because they are not paid with money.
1. If they didn't get something out of it, they wouldn't be doing it.
2. They don't get money out of it.
3. So...