451–460 of 549 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Facebook is already doing that. It just happens to be making choices about how to do it that maximize its profits while ignoring the voices of most of its users.
I would rather them maximize profits rather than decide to actually take a stance in manipulating society. At least I know where I stand with a greedy corporation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think people that work on this feature mean well - or at least they think that they mean well. But as a result, we have a two-tier system where the peasants have one set of rules and the nobility has an entirely different one. It may have started as a hack to correct the obvious inadequacies of the moderation system, but it grew into something much more sinister and alien to the spirit of free speech, and is ripe f…
Let me try to explain it again. Suppose an integrity system has a true positive rate of 99.99%. That would be good enough to deploy right? Except that when applied to millions of accounts, 0.01% is still a massive number of people. This is even worse when those people are unusual in some way. For example they might open conversations with hundreds of strangers a day for good reasons. But their behaviour is so similar…
This is extremely simplistic view which is extremely prone to obvious abuse, I really hope FB does much better than this. With obsessive surveillance that FB collects on pretty much everything it can lay their paws on and then some, they could do much better than just counting abuse reports. Much, much better if they really had some smart people - like behavioral science PhDs they surely can afford and they now surely use to figure out how to better sell ads - to work on it for a couple of years, I'm sure they could arrive at something better than "if it gets more than N reports, shut it down". If they don't, it means they don't care enough.
> After all, there’s no reason for accounts in good standing to lie right?
Of course there is. Politicians lie all the time. MSM lie all the time. Why won't regular people lie all the time? Of course they do, for a myriad of reasons. And since there's no punishment for lying, there's zero incentive for them not to.
> There needs to be exceptions so such rules
No, there need to be better rules. If you rules suck, and you have to do exceptions for the nobles, they still suck for the peasants. Making it easy for friends of Zuckerberg is not fixing it, it's just sweeping it under the carpet and leaving it to rot.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You might say that maybe 99.99% isn’t good enough and the engineers should try for more 9s. Maybe it’s possible but I don’t know how. If you have ideas on this, please share. Hire a large human moderation team. Facebook can afford to. They choose not to.
> a large human moderation team You're not the only person who has suggested this. Let's think about that for a second. Let's say it takes 6 minutes for a moderation team to review an older account. There's 2 billion accounts, so it'd be good to review all of those. It would take about 200 million hours. Presumably you'd want to re-review positive cases so no moderator has too much power. Additional time. Even if Fac…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I did touch on that problem. Like I pointed out Zuckerberg can’t log in on new devices anymore. That’s because of the thousands of attempts per second to log into his account. Those attempts happen because he’s a celebrity. His experience is objectively different because of who he is. It’s the same with Neymar. How many times do you think his profile is reported for any number of violations by people who don’t like h…
>If you have an idea for a better way, you should share it. I'm certain that the other poster won't present some kind of practical outline because part-way through the brainstorming they will realize they are designing a "Social Credit Score" and become too frustrated to continue.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have no overlap between people I know IRL and people I know on SM. They are wholly separate worlds. If I know them IRL, it's text and email - never ever SM. For me, the point of SM is burnable bridges. It's a place to take risks and later apply the lessons to meatspace. In spite of that, I've cultivated many lasting online relationships but I can't see myself ever meeting any of them in person.
SM?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure what you're point really is. You keep harping on Zuckerberg not being able to log in on new devices but dismiss the entirety of the report and the internal review as "Yeah, well, at scale there's nothing you can do." If that's the case, shut it off. We wouldn't accept that from a manufacturer of a physical product.
> If that's the case, shut it off. It should be obvious why "Shut Facebook off" is not in the domain of potential solutions Facebook will entertain to this technical challenge.
It seems like no one has figured out a good system for moderation on the internet. IIUC, Facebook hired contractors to do it, then realized that that didn't work and created XCheck to cover the visible cases, and is now in trouble because XCheck also doesn't work and rubber-stamps everything. Even before this there were news stories about the horribleness of those contract moderator jobs. Reddit tried to federate mod…
The only systems that have figured out moderation at scale are Wikipedia and StackExchange. But see what HN thinks about that. Nobody wants to admit that the only type of moderation that actually works at scale is an entrenched group of somewhat-expert overly-attached users gatekeeping contributions with (what looks like to the novice and sometimes even to the established user) extreme prejudice on a website with int…
For me, I take time to edit questions with poor grammar and help people solve their problems from time to time.
It seems like no one has figured out a good system for moderation on the internet. IIUC, Facebook hired contractors to do it, then realized that that didn't work and created XCheck to cover the visible cases, and is now in trouble because XCheck also doesn't work and rubber-stamps everything. Even before this there were news stories about the horribleness of those contract moderator jobs. Reddit tried to federate mod…
The only systems that have figured out moderation at scale are Wikipedia and StackExchange. But see what HN thinks about that. Nobody wants to admit that the only type of moderation that actually works at scale is an entrenched group of somewhat-expert overly-attached users gatekeeping contributions with (what looks like to the novice and sometimes even to the established user) extreme prejudice on a website with int…
Though I don't disagree that lots of well-intentioned humans could be a path to moderation that works.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I actually disagree that Facebook has consistently been about ranking from the start, I think for a while in the middle it was legitimately a social media platform. But it most certainly started out as that. If you dig a bit into the history of it the primordial version of Facebook was essentially little more than HotOrNot.
I was on Facebook from almost the first day, when it was only open to college students (and the domain name was thefacebook.com). It was definitely not as you describe. There was no ranking of faces. You can see for yourself by searching for “2005 Facebook screenshots”.
—February 2004 Facebook user