11–20 of 88 posts
I'm more surprised that they haven't moved to Machine Learning yet.
> Anyone with more than 100,000 followers on a social media platform is designated as a public figure – which denies them the full protections given to private individuals. 100k followers is a curiously high threshold to be labeled as a public figure. I'd wager many people who are notable enough to have Wikipedia pages would not be able to hit that threshold even on Twitter.
(Although I'd disagree with your implication that having a wikipedia page should constitute proof of the publics' interest in someone's life, and all the consequences being a "public figure" entails in some jurisdictions)
> Anyone with more than 100,000 followers on a social media platform is designated as a public figure – which denies them the full protections given to private individuals. 100k followers is a curiously high threshold to be labeled as a public figure. I'd wager many people who are notable enough to have Wikipedia pages would not be able to hit that threshold even on Twitter.
What is the downside of having a high threshold for removing protections?
It's interesting that they have specific provisions for Zionism.
I hope the take-away that comes out of the leaked documents is this: community moderation is very, very hard . It's not just a simple cut-and-dry "free speech vs censorship" issue. There's an enormous amount of nuance involved to sustain a community that won't just devolve into a toxic waste dump that's poison for 99% of the people there. In my experience working with startups, many of them don't treat their content…
Is it? I always admired the much-scoffed YouTube as the free-est place to talk on the internet. Where a vegan gay liberal from NY can discuss on the same video with a neo-con Mongolian and a 15-year old hipster from Sweden, an Israeli Jew, an Arab, and a black South African truck driver, and even agree and share experiences, and at worse you just get a few insults thrown and that's it.
I hope the take-away that comes out of the leaked documents is this: community moderation is very, very hard . It's not just a simple cut-and-dry "free speech vs censorship" issue. There's an enormous amount of nuance involved to sustain a community that won't just devolve into a toxic waste dump that's poison for 99% of the people there. In my experience working with startups, many of them don't treat their content…
> There's an enormous amount of nuance involved to sustain a community that won't just devolve into a toxic waste dump that's poison for 99% of the people there. Is it? I always admired the much-scoffed YouTube as the free-est place to talk on the internet. Where a vegan gay liberal from NY can discuss on the same video with a neo-con Mongolian and a 15-year old hipster from Sweden, an Israeli Jew, an Arab, and a bla…
I can only imagine how much worse it is for the team over at Youtube. The first thing I would do as CEO over there is hug them, give them a raise, double their vacation time, and make sure they have very good access to mental health services in case they need it. I'm not saying they're treated poorly right now, but again, it would be one of the first things I looked at.
It's interesting that they have specific provisions for Zionism.
What does it even mean? What are the red and green marks?
What's even weirder to me is that they don't touch upon more examples. It's just so incredibly arbitrary that it can be used to easily cover up anything with zero consequences.
I hope the take-away that comes out of the leaked documents is this: community moderation is very, very hard . It's not just a simple cut-and-dry "free speech vs censorship" issue. There's an enormous amount of nuance involved to sustain a community that won't just devolve into a toxic waste dump that's poison for 99% of the people there. In my experience working with startups, many of them don't treat their content…
> There's an enormous amount of nuance involved to sustain a community that won't just devolve into a toxic waste dump that's poison for 99% of the people there. Is it? I always admired the much-scoffed YouTube as the free-est place to talk on the internet. Where a vegan gay liberal from NY can discuss on the same video with a neo-con Mongolian and a 15-year old hipster from Sweden, an Israeli Jew, an Arab, and a bla…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is the downside of having a high threshold for removing protections?
Well, that is because by adding protections to a person, you are removing free speech rights from someone else.
Notwithstanding the fact that it's Social Network, Inc's platform (and thus property) and you have no free speech rights on someone else's platform. Your right to free speech means the government cannot unduly curtail your speech.