11–20 of 128 posts
This would be better if there was more moral/ethical depth. It also doesn't explore how content moderation policies shape discourse and how moderators often times abuse such policies to manipulate posts that fit their ideology.
"A post about the movie Cocaine Bear recommends doing cocaine while watching the movie and contains a photograph of a bag of white powder with the hashtag #cocaine"
That... seems like an obvious joke to me. And even if it's not, while "doing cocaine" is illegal, photographs of white powders are not, nor is suggesting that people do cocaine, nor is portraying them apparently doing so. We can know this is true because the producers and actors who worked on the film Cocaine Bear were not arrested.
Content moderation is hard, but I'm not very impressed that the very first card shown got it (in my opinion) totally wrong.
For eduction purpose would be cool to explain rules after the fact.
Small feedback: when there is an appeal, I'm not sure wether green means approving the appeal or stay with the initial decision.
In the tutorial, the very first card I was presented with was reported for being "illegal", and the description was (from memory. I might not have it quite right) "A post about the movie Cocaine Bear recommends doing cocaine while watching the movie and contains a photograph of a bag of white powder with the hashtag #cocaine" That... seems like an obvious joke to me. And even if it's not, while "doing cocaine" is ill…
This is more like a game about shitty management communication. The rules are fairly arbitrary, and you're not told about any of them until you screw up, and even clear-cut cases like someone posting someone else's phone number are used to slap your wrist (apparently the second person consented, but nobody explains why that's your problem. Surely the second person can post their own phone number). Some advertisement…
"corporate apologetics" - This is pretty clearly about the actual experience of working as a front-line worker in content management. Percieved time pressure, edge cases, lack of context, juggling 100 different priorities.
I was personally more convinced of the double-bind issue after playing: different groups of people (at every level) have different norms, the Internet helps bring them all in contact with each other, and I can see how that's a recipe for making them angry with each other and also with the intermediary.
In the tutorial, the very first card I was presented with was reported for being "illegal", and the description was (from memory. I might not have it quite right) "A post about the movie Cocaine Bear recommends doing cocaine while watching the movie and contains a photograph of a bag of white powder with the hashtag #cocaine" That... seems like an obvious joke to me. And even if it's not, while "doing cocaine" is ill…
Moderation is hard and that example is… the perfect example. User reports are rarely accurate but still valuable.
This would be better if there was more moral/ethical depth. It also doesn't explore how content moderation policies shape discourse and how moderators often times abuse such policies to manipulate posts that fit their ideology.
Does Twitters community notes kind of fix moderation or could that also be manipulated?
There is no “fix”. There’s no magic. It’s just us in here.
This would be better if there was more moral/ethical depth. It also doesn't explore how content moderation policies shape discourse and how moderators often times abuse such policies to manipulate posts that fit their ideology.
Does Twitters community notes kind of fix moderation or could that also be manipulated?
This is more like a game about shitty management communication. The rules are fairly arbitrary, and you're not told about any of them until you screw up, and even clear-cut cases like someone posting someone else's phone number are used to slap your wrist (apparently the second person consented, but nobody explains why that's your problem. Surely the second person can post their own phone number). Some advertisement…