TikTok told moderators to suppress posts by “ugly” people and the poor • Hacker News Board

Re: TikTok told moderators to suppress posts by “ugly” people and the poor

#231

Post by kevin_thibedeau » Wed, Mar 18, 2020, 2:39 AM UTC

dmix wrote: post #207

kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The web was never a commons. It all rests on accessing content hosted by privately owned platforms. The commons is SMTP, SNTP, and IRC. Digital natives don't care about these because they aren't shiny and expect that the free stuff they've been given all their life is an inalienable right.

Rights don't involve being given "free stuff", they exist to prevents it from being taken away. Which is a super popular misconception (or at least misuse) all on its own.

Nobody has a right to someone else's property.

Re: TikTok told moderators to suppress posts by “ugly” people and the poor

#232

Post by catalogia » Wed, Mar 18, 2020, 2:40 AM UTC

tmpz22 wrote: post #172

literalanyone wrote: post #154

So... "Sex sells." Is this new? I feel like we want the world to be a better place in 2020, and then we are reminded the humans are basically still humans.

It's like you expect the cook at the restaurant to thoroughly wash their hands, they don't legally have to do it thoroughly, but ultimately if you knew they didn't you probably wouldn't eat there to begin with. Users deserve to know how hard they are being fucked. Informed consent, even for the naive users, basically.

> they don't legally have to do it thoroughly,

I don't think that's an apt analogy because I don't think that's true. I've perused the health inspector reports for local restaurants a few times and I've seen businesses written up for substandard sanitation practices. It may not be the most enforceable law ever, but nevertheless I'm pretty sure the law does require them to wash their hands thoroughly.

Re: TikTok told moderators to suppress posts by “ugly” people and the poor

#233

Post by wayoutthere » Wed, Mar 18, 2020, 2:40 AM UTC

sexpositiveuser wrote: post #228

wayoutthere wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Chinese solution to "disharmony" is to simply erase anyone who is different. LGBT people are allowed to exist so long as they don't draw attention to themselves. Also the ethnic cleansing in Xinjiang. I don't think these were intended to stop online bullying as much as they are just another bullying tactic themselves.

Is this all that different from Apple's walled garden? You want a porn app on your iPhone or a Political app, both are banned and no user oriented way to side load. (geek only solutions don't count).

Political apps exist? Bernie has an app and I'm sure the other major party candidates do too.

Porn also seems like a very reasonable place to draw the line for the app store. It's not like the iPhone has a porn filter, you just have to use a browser to watch your porn.

Re: TikTok told moderators to suppress posts by “ugly” people and the poor

#234

Post by avocado4 » Wed, Mar 18, 2020, 2:43 AM UTC

papeda wrote: post #4

Geez, I thought this might be an overblown piece about algorithms unwittingly optimizing for the wrong things, but the headline is pretty accurate. Discussing how moderators choose content to recommend to people in the “For You” section (not a user — I assume this is something highlighted to users): > Under this policy, TikTok moderators were explicitly told to suppress uploads from users with flaws both congenital a…

China exporting its culture to the world.

Re: TikTok told moderators to suppress posts by “ugly” people and the poor

#235

Post by viztor » Wed, Mar 18, 2020, 2:44 AM UTC

Unfortunately, those written document are nothing more than ugly but accurate reflection of the market. TikTok does this the same reason Hollywood does. The only difference no one in Hollywood wrote it down, but it is almost as a taken.

Re: TikTok told moderators to suppress posts by “ugly” people and the poor

#236

Post by overcast » Wed, Mar 18, 2020, 2:46 AM UTC

Reminds me of the S10E7 of Curb your Enthusiasm, "The Ugly Section"

Re: TikTok told moderators to suppress posts by “ugly” people and the poor

#237

Post by kevin_thibedeau » Wed, Mar 18, 2020, 2:48 AM UTC

everyone wrote: post #65

So, its like TV or films? ... or advertising, magazines.. most media come to think of it.

This is more like trickle down authoritarianism promoting Potemkin villages in all spheres of life. Old decorations just won't do there.

Re: TikTok told moderators to suppress posts by “ugly” people and the poor

#238

Post by billfruit » Wed, Mar 18, 2020, 2:48 AM UTC

stainforth wrote: post #230

kristopolous wrote: post #212

Although this ruffles sensibilities, isn't it kind of expected from an entertainment platform? Any traditional teen magazine from 20 years ago (seventeen, tigerbeat) wouldn't be scolded for heavily policing what photos go in the pages. Not only that, they heavily post processed everything. There's superficial and arbitrary gatekeepers for what is called news, what is played on the radio, basically everything. Even so…

We're moving past allowing this kind of manipulation and distortion of reality.

Yes there is a sentiment against TV shows and magazines doing such things, but many shows and magazines continue the practises today.

Re: TikTok told moderators to suppress posts by “ugly” people and the poor

#239

Post by mistermann » Wed, Mar 18, 2020, 2:49 AM UTC

stainforth wrote: post #230

kristopolous wrote: post #212

Although this ruffles sensibilities, isn't it kind of expected from an entertainment platform? Any traditional teen magazine from 20 years ago (seventeen, tigerbeat) wouldn't be scolded for heavily policing what photos go in the pages. Not only that, they heavily post processed everything. There's superficial and arbitrary gatekeepers for what is called news, what is played on the radio, basically everything. Even so…

We're moving past allowing this kind of manipulation and distortion of reality.

In some ways we are, in others not. I think there is great value discussing such things abstractly, in no small part because it can minimize personal biases and rivalries.

Re: TikTok told moderators to suppress posts by “ugly” people and the poor

#240

Post by kristopolous » Wed, Mar 18, 2020, 2:50 AM UTC

stainforth wrote: post #230

kristopolous wrote: post #212

Although this ruffles sensibilities, isn't it kind of expected from an entertainment platform? Any traditional teen magazine from 20 years ago (seventeen, tigerbeat) wouldn't be scolded for heavily policing what photos go in the pages. Not only that, they heavily post processed everything. There's superficial and arbitrary gatekeepers for what is called news, what is played on the radio, basically everything. Even so…

We're moving past allowing this kind of manipulation and distortion of reality.

It's more a question of "proper" filtering, not "no" filtering.

For instance, if a PhD program only accepted white male applicants, we'd find that unacceptable. If instead, they only accepted people with proper credentials, scores, and recommendations, we'd find that fine. It's not no filter, just the right one.

Similarly, if we were making a movie about Jim Crow segregation and needed actors to play white racist men then our same unacceptable filter all of a sudden looks reasonable.

So it's not about removing filters, it's about making them justifiable and relevant. That's why we say "there's no reason that a qualified X can't be a Y", that part, the reason part, is important.