It's interesting that they have specific provisions for Zionism.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/may/21/revealed-facebo... 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.
Facebook's internal rulebook on sex, terrorism and violence
81–88 of 88 posts
Re: Facebook's internal rulebook on sex, terrorism and violence
#82I 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…
>PTSD is a real problem with these teams
Yeah, that's not even close. They might get stressed, but it's not like seeing your best friend(s) getting blown to pieces every time you close your eyes.
Re: Facebook's internal rulebook on sex, terrorism and violence
#83Earlier quoted context omitted.
Listen. I used the phone since 40 years. With the phone I had conversations with people that could have, well, annoyed others to say the least. I've said super bad things with my phone. Was I moderated ? No. Was it a problem ? No. Moderating is just here to make sure that FaceBook can still operate. That's just a problem for FaceBook to protect its image. Let's imagine that there is no moderation. What will happen ?…
I hear you but... This also happens in sports. Someone says something in an interview, in a social network post, in a private conversation which gets published... and what happens? Depending on offense the team may, ignore, fine, suspend or fire the person in question, outside the legal framework. That is, someone may say something insensitive or can be accused (not yet proven) to have done something unbecoming... te…
You're right. But the ratio between number of people employed by FaceBook versus number of customer managed by FB is much greater, so I guess it makes me a tad more nervous :-)
Re: Facebook's internal rulebook on sex, terrorism and violence
#84Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 find Reddit a lot better for that kind of conversation (excepting certain subs like /r/the_donald, /r/resist, /r/worldnews, /r/politics and certain others). /r/AskReddit is one of the best places to have such free and open conversations and the best thing is that you get to set the topic for the conversation instead of some arbitrary video remotely related to what you want to talk about.
>and the best thing is that you get to set the topic for the conversation instead of some arbitrary video remotely related to what you want to talk about.
That's a good point (allowing for deeper discussion), but in YouTube I also like how the image/video transcends borders and politics etc in a way that targeted discussion doesn't.
(You can be anything, black, KKK, hipster barrista, 40yo soccer mon, Jew, Arab, donald-fan, etc, but still like/dislike the same cat clip, or old bluegrass song, or belly dancing or whatever).
Re: Facebook's internal rulebook on sex, terrorism and violence
#85Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's probably a good example of why "freedom" isn't the right way to measure a community's value. Because the entirety of all youtube comments' value can only be measured in what worse things they authors were prevented from doing while commenting there. Freedom of speech is great, and important. That doesn't mean that there's any value in just anybody exploring the boundaries of it.
> Because the entirety of all youtube comments' value can only be measured in what worse things they authors were prevented from doing while commenting there. This says more about your sampling bias than youtube itself. And the fact you are posting this says more about the magnitude of your political bias (its exact direction being yet tbd) than anything you read. I'm not sure if you realize how many nuts really say…
>This says more about your sampling bias than youtube itself. And the fact you are posting this says more about the magnitude of your political bias (its exact direction being yet tbd) than anything you read.
And both of the above say more about your willingness to characterize the parent than about the issue under discussion.
>I'm not sure if you realize how many nuts really say what they believe and believe what they say.
Doesn't seem to matter, as long as they don't also ACT on what they believe/say. Which is the case for most people (both positive, e.g. they are racist but they wont act on it, and negative, e.g. they say their are this or that good thing, but they're all talk about it).
Re: Facebook's internal rulebook on sex, terrorism and violence
#86Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, I flubbed the question. Let's try again: Why is it possible for 4chan to have the line far afield of what we'd normally think of as acceptable behavior? It's not only survived, but prospered. A naive explanation is that only awful people go there, and there are a large number of those types. But that'd be mistaken. I don't know, but it seems like an interesting question.
I guess I'd take some issue with the claim that it has prospered; it's survived, but according to every report I've ever seen, it's never actually made money. As for why it's stayed alive, given the anonymization, it's hard to draw significant conclusions about the community there without having access to 4chan's own analytics, but my suspicion is that the number of people who are long-time contributors to the site a…
> I guess I'd take some issue with the claim that it has prospered; it's survived, but according to every report I've ever seen, it's never actually made money.
I don't think it was ever meant to make money. Lots of great (for various aspects of great) things exist for non-monetary reasons.
Re: Facebook's internal rulebook on sex, terrorism and violence
#87Do you have any legal citations about the right to be heard?
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14388706 and marked it off-topic.
Re: Facebook's internal rulebook on sex, terrorism and violence
#88I 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…
> a community that won't just devolve into a toxic waste dump that's poison for 99% of the people there
Have you seen Facebook?
That's not what it's optimizing for. Profit and eyeballs. Don't delude yourself. Toxic? Poison? Sure thing, as long as they can sell your attention span, Facebook don't care.
Honestly. You know what it's doing. Doing to everybody.
In as far as this team is building or sustaining a community, it's a tiny sandcastle on a beach facing the automated tidal wave of corporate exploitation of our dopamine/addiction response.
Sustaining a community of junkies is very, very hard. It's not just a simple cut-and-dry "freedom to do whatever to your body" vs "personal health". There's an enormous amount of nuance involved to sustain a crack house that won't just devolve into a toxic waste dump that's poison for 99% of the people there.
In my experience working at crack houses, many of them don't treat their bouncers well, or it tends to be an afterthought. In reality, this can be the hardest and most important job. PTSD is a real problem with these teams, and pay is often sub-par. And when they make mistakes (or when they don't but people still get mad), they tend to get the bulk of the criticism from it. And then at the end, they usually aren't allowed to talk publicly about any of the work they do.
(the analogy holds about as far as until you try to hug them--which is when they'll punch your lights out. but they do mean well, or something)