Moderate people, not code.

u/taurusnoises

By its very nature, moderation is a form of censorship. You, as a community, space, or platform are deciding who and what is unacceptable. In Substack’s case, for example, they don’t allow pornography but they do allow Nazis. That’s not “free speech” but rather a business decision. If you’re making moderation based on financials, fine, but say so. Then platform users can make choices appropriately.

content-moderation subsidiarity. Just asthe general principle of political subsidiarity holds that decisions should bemade at the lowest organizational level capable of making such decisions,15content-moderation subsidiarity devolves decisions to the individual in-stances that make up the overall network.

OpenAI also contracted out what’s known as ghost labor: gig workers, including some in Kenya (a former British Empire state, where people speak Empire English) who make $2 an hour to read and tag the worst stuff imaginable — pedophilia, bestiality, you name it — so it can be weeded out. The filtering leads to its own issues. If you remove content with words about sex, you lose content of in-groups talking with one another about those things.

“you’ll never be able to sanitize the Internet.”

“Zuck Got Me For,” a site created by a meme account administrator who goes by Ana, is a place where creators can upload nonsensical content that was banned by Instagram’s moderation algorithms.

“The reality is that tech companies have been using automated tools to moderate content for a really long time and while it’s touted as this sophisticated machine learning, it’s often just a list of words they think are problematic,” said Ángel Díaz, a lecturer at the UCLA School of Law who studies technology and racial discrimination.

But algorithmic content moderation systems are more pervasive on the modern Internet, and often end up silencing marginalized communities and important discussions.

LaMDA's safety features could also be limiting: Michelle Taransky found that "the software seemed very reluctant to generate people doing mean things". Models that generate toxic content are highly undesirable, but a literary world where no character is ever mean is unlikely to be interesting.

Although there is no server governance census, in my own research I found very few examples of more participatory approaches to server governance (social.coop keeps a list of collectively owned instances)

The Fediverse is, by design, fractured by server-level decisions that block and cancel access to other parts of the network.

The subjectivity of moderation decisions across the social web poses tremendous and complicated problems—which is precisely why journalists and academics have paid close attention to it for more than a decade

The trolling is paramount. When former Facebook CSO and Stanford Internet Observatory leader Alex Stamos asked whether Musk would consider implementing his detailed plan for “a trustworthy, neutral platform for political conversations around the world,” Musk responded, “You operate a propaganda platform.” Musk doesn’t appear to want to substantively engage on policy issues: He wants to be aggrieved.

Twitter has, like its fellow social media platforms, been working for years to make the process of moderation efficient and systematic enough to function at scale. Not just so the platform isn’t overrun with bots and spam, but in order to comply with legal frameworks like FTC orders and the GDPR.

The most typical way users encounter trending content is when a massively viral tweet — or subtweets about that tweet or the discourse it created — enters their feed. Then it’s up to them to figure out what kind of account posted the tweet, what kind of accounts are sharing the tweet, and what accounts are saying about the tweet.

The most successful, I’d argue, is Reddit

my best guess is it’s the moderation

The hypothesis is that hate speech is met with other speech in a free marketplace of ideas.That hypothesis only functions if users are trapped in one conversational space. What happens instead is that users choose not to volunteer their time and labor to speak around or over those calling for their non-existence (or for the non-existence of their friends and loved ones) and go elsewhere... Taking their money and attention with them.As those promulgating the hate speech tend to be a much smaller group than those who leave, it is in the selfish interest of most forums to police that kind of signal jamming to maximize their possible user-base. Otherwise, you end up with a forum full mostly of those dabbling in hate speech, which is (a) not particularly advertiser friendly, (b) hostile to further growth, and (c) not something most people who get into this gig find themselves proud of.

The trust one must place in the creator of a blocklist is enormous, because the most dangerous failure mode isn’t that it doesn’t block who it says it does, but that it blocks who it says it doesn’t and they just disappear.

This question was removed from Stack Overflow for reasons of moderation.

for the safety of the LGBTQ community here we refused to engage in mass server blocking and instead encouraged our users to block servers on an individual basis and provided access to block lists for them to do so

In fact we added a feature just for them called subscriptions which allowed them to monitor accounts without following them so they could do so anonymously.

s pecifically from the LGBTQ community, onto our server. It turns out many people relied on us not-blocking for their physical safety. There were big name biggots (like milo yanappolus) who were on the network. They used their accounts here to watch his account for doxing so they could warn themselves and their community and protect themselves accordingly

allowed people read content from any server (but with strict hate speech rules)

So there are some servers out there that demand every server int he network block every instance they do, and if a server doesnt block an instance they block then they block you in rettatliation.Their reason for this is quite flawed but it goes like this.. If we federate with a bad actor instance and we boost one of their posts then their users will see it and defeat the purpose of the block. The problem is, this isnt how it actually works. If they block a server and we boost it, they wont see the boost, thats how blocks work.

The problem when the asset is people is that people are intensely complicated, and trying to regulate how people behave is historically a miserable experience, especially when that authority is vested in a single powerful individual.

The essential truth of every social network is that the product is content moderation, and everyone hates the people who decide how content moderation works.

Some social media platforms struggle with even relatively simple tasks, such as detecting copies of terrorist videos that have already been removed. But their task becomes even harder when they are asked to quickly remove content that nobody has ever seen before. “The human brain is the most effective tool to identify toxic material,” said Roi Carthy, the chief marketing officer of L1ght, a content moderation AI company. Humans become especially useful when harmful content is delivered in new formats and contexts that AI may not identify. “There’s nobody that knows how to solve content moderation holistically, period,” Carthy said. “There’s no such thing.”

The essential truth of every social network is that the product is content moderation, and everyone hates the people who decide how content moderation works.

If the link is in a Proud Boys forum, would you not take any action against it, even if it’s like, “Click this link to help plan”?Are you asking if we have people out there clicking every link and checking if the forum comports with the ideological position that Signal agrees with?Yeah. I think in the most abstract way, I’m asking if you have a content moderation team.No, we don’t have that. We are also not a social media platform. We don’t amplify content. We don’t have Telegram channels where you can broadcast to thousands and thousands of people. We have been really careful in our product development side not to develop Signal as a social network that has algorithmic amplification that allows that “one to millions” amplification of content. We are a messaging platform. We don’t have a content moderation team because (1) we are fully private, we don’t see your content, we don’t know who you’re talking about; and (2) we are not a content platform, so it is a different paradigm.

We will continue to listen and work to make Hypothesis a safe and welcoming place for expression and conversation on the web

The Seattle Times turns off comments on “stories that are of a sensitive nature,” said Michelle Matassa Flores, executive editor of The Seattle Times. “People can’t behave on any story that has to do with race.” Comments are turned off on stories about race, immigration, and crime, for instance.

Mod note: This question is about why XMLHttpRequest/fetch/etc. on the browser are subject to the Same Access Policy restrictions (you get errors mentioning CORB or CORS) while Postman is not. This question is not about how to fix a "No 'Access-Control-Allow-Origin'..." error. It's about why they happen.

Please stop posting: CORS configurations for every language/framework under the sun. Instead find your relevant language/framework's question. 3rd party services that allow a request to circumvent CORS Command line options for turning off CORS for various browsers

Take control of it for yourself.

Q: So, this means you don’t value hearing from readers?A: Not at all. We engage with readers every day, and we are constantly looking for ways to hear and share the diversity of voices across New Jersey. We have built strong communities on social platforms, and readers inform our journalism daily through letters to the editor. We encourage readers to reach out to us, and our contact information is available on this How To Reach Us page.

Many news organizations have made the decision to eliminate or restrict comments in recent years, from National Public Radio, to The Atlantic, to NJ.com, which did a nice job of explaining the decision when comments were removed from its site.

Experience has shown that anything short of 24-hour vigilance on all stories is insufficient.

Meanwhile, the algorithms that recommend this content still work to maximize engagement. This means every toxic post that escapes the content-moderation filters will continue to be pushed higher up the news feed and promoted to reach a larger audience.

In his New York Times profile, Schroepfer named these limitations of the company’s content-moderation strategy. “Every time Mr. Schroepfer and his more than 150 engineering specialists create A.I. solutions that flag and squelch noxious material, new and dubious posts that the A.I. systems have never seen before pop up—and are thus not caught,” wrote the Times. “It’s never going to go to zero,” Schroepfer told the publication.

Lori Morimoto, a fandom academic who was involved in the earlier discussion, didn’t mince words about the inherent hypocrisy of the controversy around STWW. “The discussions of the fic were absolutely riddled with people saying they wished you could block and/or ban certain users and fics on AO3 altogether because this is obnoxious,” she wrote to me in an email, “and nowhere (that I can see) is there anyone chiming in to say, ‘BUT FREE SPEECH!!!’” Morimoto continued: But when people suggest the same thing based on racist works and users, suddenly everything is about freedom of speech and how banning is bad. When it’s about racism, every apologist under the sun puts in an appearance to fight for our rights to be racist assholes, but if it’s about making the reading experience less enjoyable (which is basically what this is — it’s obnoxious, but not particularly harmful except to other works’ ability to be seen), then suddenly our overwhelming concern with free speech seems to just disappear in a poof of nothingness.

What we're after is a low-friction way for website owners to let other people link to their ideas and creations, offering a rich contextual reading experience for audiences, without letting bad actors monopolise the system.

The solution, he said, was to identify “super-spreaders” of slander, the people and the websites that wage the most vicious false attacks.

Group Rules from the Admins1NO POSTING LINKS INSIDE OF POST - FOR ANY REASONWe've seen way too many groups become a glorified classified ad & members don't like that. We don't want the quality of our group negatively impacted because of endless links everywhere. NO LINKS2NO POST FROM FAN PAGES / ARTICLES / VIDEO LINKSOur mission is to cultivate the highest quality content inside the group. If we allowed videos, fan page shares, & outside websites, our group would turn into spam fest. Original written content only3NO SELF PROMOTION, RECRUITING, OR DM SPAMMINGMembers love our group because it's SAFE. We are very strict on banning members who blatantly self promote their product or services in the group OR secretly private message members to recruit them.4NO POSTING OR UPLOADING VIDEOS OF ANY KINDTo protect the quality of our group & prevent members from being solicited products & services - we don't allow any videos because we can't monitor what's being said word for word. Written post only.

Sarah Roberts’s new book Behind the Screen: Content Moderation in the Shadows of Social Media (2019)

What will it take to break this circuit, where white supremacists see that violence is rewarded with amplification and infamy? While the answer is not straightforward, there are technical and ethical actions available.

You’re doing some things I’d like you to stop doing:

What were the “right things” to serve the community, as Zuckerberg put it, when the community had grown to more than 3 billion people?

Overall, the process of moderating individual comments is really really really fucking hard.

A moderator provides motivation and inertia to an asynchronous computerconference, encouraging interaction between participants while creating asupportive and comfortable environment for discussion.

The creator of a Hypothesis group

Meta-moderators are chosen by their reputation in the associated area. By domain proximity.

students responded to messages more actively and engaged in more in-depth discussions when discussions were moderated by a peer.

moderating entities.

fairness and transparency in YouTube’s moderation practices

Comments are moderated and will only be made live if they add to the discussion in a constructive way. If you disagree with a point, be polite. This should be a conversation between professional people with the aim that we all learn.

They can spew hate amongst themselves for eternity, but without amplification it won’t thrive.

"I am really pleased to see different sites deciding not to privilege aggressors' speech over their targets'," Phillips said. "That tends to be the default position in so many online 'free speech' debates which suggest that if you restrict aggressors' speech, you're doing a disservice to America—a position that doesn't take into account the fact that antagonistic speech infringes on the speech of those who are silenced by that kind of abuse."

Comments sections often become shouting matches or spam-riddled.

Several content moderation experts point to Pinterest as an industry leader. Microsoft’s Tarleton Gillespie, author of the forthcoming Free Speech in the Age of Platform, says the company is likely doing the most of any social media company to bridge the divide between platform and user, private company and the public. The platform’s moderation staff is well-funded and supported, and Pinterest is reportedly breaking ground in making its processes transparent to users. For example, Pinterest posts visual examples to illustrate the site’s "acceptable use policy" in an effort to help users better understand the platform’s content guidelines and the decisions moderators make to uphold them.

Hegemonic online voting systems are not useful mechanisms for the creation of equitable online communities, which is a prerequisite for more nuanced and sophisticated collaborative textual interpretation.

http://ssrn.com/abstract=2588493

semico m- mons — a resource that is owned and managed as private pro p- erty at one l evel but as a commons at a n other, and in which “both common and private uses are important and impact si g- nificantly on each other.” 42

shared infrastru c ture with limited capacity

well - moderated community will have low costs

moderation can increase access to online commun i- ties.

participation in moderation and in setting moderation

the unlucky YouTube employees who manual ly r e- view flagged videos. 24

r when a comm u- nity is tor n between participants with incompatible goals (e.g. , amateur and professional photogr a phers).

moderation by flagg ing unwanted posts for deletion because they enjoy being part of a thriving communit

Thus, even though it is not pa r- ticularly helpful to talk about Google as a c ommunity in its own rig ht, 21 it and other search engines play an important role in the overall mo d eration of the Web . 22

ex ante versus ex pos

norms versus architectu

d. When they do their job right, they cr e- ate the conditions under which cooperation is possib

called on designers and social scientists to ethically embrace their role as the web's “civil servants,”

dependent on those who use them and on the subjective judgments of the people who provide mutual aid.

They won’t continue to log on if they find their family photos sandwiched between a gruesome Russian highway accident and a hardcore porn video.