XCheck at Meta: Why it exists and how it works(blog.nindalf.com)
blog.nindalf.com
XCheck at Meta: Why it exists and how it works
https://blog.nindalf.com/posts/xcheck/
231 comments
This is an excellent piece which really does a good job at explaining the nuance that exists in this challenging problem domain. Thank you for writing this. It's a great piece to point to whenever the next scandal gets "exposed" by click-seeking folks on the internet.
It's good that it keeps getting exposed that a single organization without accountability decides what people are or are not allowed to publish on a platform to the people who explicitly subscribed to their publications.
The fact that moderation is a hard problem is orthogonal. The fact remains that there are different rules for different people, both for flagging and for content. The fact that there is more nuance than "two sets of rules" doesn't really change the fundamental problem that private companies now get to arbitrarily police publication by normal people.
I have the distinct impression that in 100 years the default mode is going to be "if it's legal you can post it, if it's not you can't, and if you have a problem with the boundary, take it up with the lawmaking authority and not us". We will look back at this time at the emergence of any-to-any publishing like the dawn of radio or TV or newspaper where a few rich guys got to decide what could or could not be published.
The fact that moderation is a hard problem is orthogonal. The fact remains that there are different rules for different people, both for flagging and for content. The fact that there is more nuance than "two sets of rules" doesn't really change the fundamental problem that private companies now get to arbitrarily police publication by normal people.
I have the distinct impression that in 100 years the default mode is going to be "if it's legal you can post it, if it's not you can't, and if you have a problem with the boundary, take it up with the lawmaking authority and not us". We will look back at this time at the emergence of any-to-any publishing like the dawn of radio or TV or newspaper where a few rich guys got to decide what could or could not be published.
https://www.getty.edu/art/collection/object/109FW5 (NSFW) is a beautiful picture, taken by a major 20th century photographer. It's also depicting a sex act that most people would never even consider.
Do you really want pictures like this everywhere on Instagram? So now we have a no sex acts rule. But then an art museum is hosting an exhibition of art, and that art is depicting sex. Maybe even pedophilic sex, like a vase in the Met that has an old man stroking a young teenagers hairless genitals on it. That's very likely child pornography, except that the law can't ban images of artistic value, and the image of the vase has a lot of value, and I doubt anyone would find it erotic. Should the Met not be allowed to use a picture of a bunch of vases to promote its exhibitions?
There's lots of reasons why reasonable seeming results are not possible from simple rules, and why it's legal, let's have it is not a great rule. Having a moderation system that addresses e.g. art studios and museums differently from other people is quite sensible.
Do you really want pictures like this everywhere on Instagram? So now we have a no sex acts rule. But then an art museum is hosting an exhibition of art, and that art is depicting sex. Maybe even pedophilic sex, like a vase in the Met that has an old man stroking a young teenagers hairless genitals on it. That's very likely child pornography, except that the law can't ban images of artistic value, and the image of the vase has a lot of value, and I doubt anyone would find it erotic. Should the Met not be allowed to use a picture of a bunch of vases to promote its exhibitions?
There's lots of reasons why reasonable seeming results are not possible from simple rules, and why it's legal, let's have it is not a great rule. Having a moderation system that addresses e.g. art studios and museums differently from other people is quite sensible.
The solution to that is a rule set that users can select what they want and automated tagging. It is essentially opt-in moderation vs. chosen for you moderation. And it could become fairly sophisticated too! We are starting to see it in the form of subscribing to block lists on twitter.
Also in practice I think this is covered for %99 of cases people via an NSFW & NSFL tag system. That would be an NSFW art and thats that.
The children issue will boil down to parents are the real root user of their children's accounts and parents will have control over the tagging set for moderation until they are of age.
IMO I think most people are fine with mandatory labeling of goods, and actually welcome it because it gives more control and informed consent. It's the mandatory censorship that become the issue.
Abusive false labelling might become the next hot topic, but that is far smaller of a surface area.
Also in practice I think this is covered for %99 of cases people via an NSFW & NSFL tag system. That would be an NSFW art and thats that.
The children issue will boil down to parents are the real root user of their children's accounts and parents will have control over the tagging set for moderation until they are of age.
IMO I think most people are fine with mandatory labeling of goods, and actually welcome it because it gives more control and informed consent. It's the mandatory censorship that become the issue.
Abusive false labelling might become the next hot topic, but that is far smaller of a surface area.
Isn't that basically what happens now? Say I join a local city group. All posts to that group could be tagged with said #city in your world. Well right now anyone who is in one of these groups knows that many people come in and post lots of extremely charged national politics. They inevitably have their content removed as it's off-topic, not from Facebook but just from the city-specific group. The poster cries that their right to freedom of speech is being violated and that the mods are censoring them.
So in your world, say the same person posts biased national political opinions and tags it with #city. Unless someone is moderating that tag, the tag becomes absolutely useless. It seems like how things work today, just with extra steps?
So in your world, say the same person posts biased national political opinions and tags it with #city. Unless someone is moderating that tag, the tag becomes absolutely useless. It seems like how things work today, just with extra steps?
You have a choice to filter out #city tagged items or not. And you can debate that a tag is incorrect as a matter of fact, much as you can debate if a food good does have sodium in it or not. And also tags are not singular, you can tag something #city #redteamblueteampolitics #highlyemotional #inflammatory and YOU get to choose if you want to see #highlyemotional content or not, not the platform. You get to choose if you want to follow the #rude #crazy person on Server Y, not your mastodon instance admin.
Also a big part of this is matter of scale and choice. I don't think people care that much about a small subreddit and their bullshit most of the time, or petty facebook group politics. It's when the platform itself does the censoring, and when the platform is where %95 of content exists due to network effects and has user counts that are in the billions that it starts having a duty of neutrality. It's much like city roads or housing or similar, the people you filter out from housing and city roads have to be filtered out for dangerous damage to the infrastructure or people itself and that is it, otherwise you get into really bad political and discriminatory territory when you say black people or people of opinion Y can't buy housing here or drive on the roads.
In this future system, you can also have alternative tagging systems, credit ratings for moderators, published AI models that tag client side, etc. I think it would be a very interesting marketplace of services!
Also a big part of this is matter of scale and choice. I don't think people care that much about a small subreddit and their bullshit most of the time, or petty facebook group politics. It's when the platform itself does the censoring, and when the platform is where %95 of content exists due to network effects and has user counts that are in the billions that it starts having a duty of neutrality. It's much like city roads or housing or similar, the people you filter out from housing and city roads have to be filtered out for dangerous damage to the infrastructure or people itself and that is it, otherwise you get into really bad political and discriminatory territory when you say black people or people of opinion Y can't buy housing here or drive on the roads.
In this future system, you can also have alternative tagging systems, credit ratings for moderators, published AI models that tag client side, etc. I think it would be a very interesting marketplace of services!
Sounds extremely subjective and time-intensive.
That photo needs a stronger warning than NSFW.
It’s a disturbing, self-destructive act and I’d rather I’d never had seen it.
It’s a disturbing, self-destructive act and I’d rather I’d never had seen it.
Short of writing a novel, what would be more clear than the clear indication that it is Not Safe For Weaklings? If you don't think you're strong enough to handle it, don't venture in. Seems pretty straightforward.
NSFL. Or, perhaps we need a “4chan and similarly tasteless degenerates” tag.
> NSFL
Not Safe For the Limp is just variant of Not Safe for the Weak. They both communicate that if you aren't strong, stay away.
> Or, perhaps we need a “4chan and similarly tasteless degenerates” tag.
It's just an arbitrary grid of pixels. Either you are strong enough to handle viewing arrangements of pixels or you aren't. The weak have been warned, the strong have no concerns. No need to overcomplicating things.
Not Safe For the Limp is just variant of Not Safe for the Weak. They both communicate that if you aren't strong, stay away.
> Or, perhaps we need a “4chan and similarly tasteless degenerates” tag.
It's just an arbitrary grid of pixels. Either you are strong enough to handle viewing arrangements of pixels or you aren't. The weak have been warned, the strong have no concerns. No need to overcomplicating things.
[deleted]
No it’s not. It’s unusual by most (>75% feels like a safe bet) people’s but it’s not self destructive… it could be considered and probably was a little on the unhygienic side of things considering the potential for urinary tract infections, but a person doing that is not a person that’s doing it for the first time. From physical deformation (not that different to someone using gauged ear piercings) and a different urinary pathogen exposure profile, their body has changed a bit. No different from skeletal and muscle related changes in people pushing the boundaries of performance in countless sports.
It’s just very different, but posed in a way that is simultaneously provocative due to the sexual nature yet mundane given how different the sexual act is.
It’s just very different, but posed in a way that is simultaneously provocative due to the sexual nature yet mundane given how different the sexual act is.
Self-mutilation for sexual gratification is a disturbing, self-destructive act and it’s not something I’m better for having seen.
I also don’t see any artistic merit in the work whatsoever, but you’re welcome to your own views and predilections. I just wish there’d been a more accurate warning so I could avoid it.
I also don’t see any artistic merit in the work whatsoever, but you’re welcome to your own views and predilections. I just wish there’d been a more accurate warning so I could avoid it.
I take your point about accurate tagging … but my point was more in response to calling it self mutilation and I was mainly trying to argue that it’s not self-mutilation… but like a lot of Mapplethorpe’s work, it kinda makes you want to talk about it, it’s “confronting” but I’ll stop myself before I go down a tangent again.
Specifically addressing my argument it’s not self mutilation is that this is the sort of thing that if they stoped doing it today would “heal”. Elasticity would change and the body would slowly return to normal. Which is why i specifically called out the gauged ear piercings. When you turn a 1mm hole in your ear to say, a 25mm hole (large but not extreme) that’s not really “self mutilation” when compared to people that deliberately undergo processes for artistic scar patterns or to use another ear example, have shapes cut out of the ear cartilage. The gauge piercing will heal, so would this and there are vastly more shocking things people do in the body modification world… many of which id say it was entirely fair to judge as self mutilation… like sclera eye “tattooing”… having something done to you that has a high potential to impart your vision or even blind you for the sake of achieving a specific artistic look on your face feels like a much more clear cut case of self mutilation than this particular photographed act.
Specifically addressing my argument it’s not self mutilation is that this is the sort of thing that if they stoped doing it today would “heal”. Elasticity would change and the body would slowly return to normal. Which is why i specifically called out the gauged ear piercings. When you turn a 1mm hole in your ear to say, a 25mm hole (large but not extreme) that’s not really “self mutilation” when compared to people that deliberately undergo processes for artistic scar patterns or to use another ear example, have shapes cut out of the ear cartilage. The gauge piercing will heal, so would this and there are vastly more shocking things people do in the body modification world… many of which id say it was entirely fair to judge as self mutilation… like sclera eye “tattooing”… having something done to you that has a high potential to impart your vision or even blind you for the sake of achieving a specific artistic look on your face feels like a much more clear cut case of self mutilation than this particular photographed act.
"Do you really want pictures like this everywhere on Instagram?"
As all things, this should be determined by subscription to content. I mean if i subscribe to CNN news and CNN stars posting dick picks or gore. I unsubscribe and thats the end of dick picks for me.
I should not see things that i don't subscribe to same way as i should not be presented with web pages that i do not explicitly go to by clicking on a link or entering url address.
It's on me if i go to 4chan. And same thing goes i opposite direction. If i like dick pics i should be able to subscribe to all of them and not be judged for that.
As all things, this should be determined by subscription to content. I mean if i subscribe to CNN news and CNN stars posting dick picks or gore. I unsubscribe and thats the end of dick picks for me.
I should not see things that i don't subscribe to same way as i should not be presented with web pages that i do not explicitly go to by clicking on a link or entering url address.
It's on me if i go to 4chan. And same thing goes i opposite direction. If i like dick pics i should be able to subscribe to all of them and not be judged for that.
I don’t think pictures like this would be “everywhere on instagram” if instagram allowed all legal content.
Correspondingly, I think your argument is a strawman.
Correspondingly, I think your argument is a strawman.
> vase in the Met
Source for the curious?
Source for the curious?
The particular vase I was thinking of seems to be on the Museuminsel, not the met. I blame my poor memory, and you can see a picture at (again NSWF) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty_in_ancient_Greece#/m...
What makes you think something as unique and hard-fought as the First Amendment will be applied to the Internet when all trends point in the other direction, both on and offline?
Are you saying that this article excuses data breaches?
The "scandal" that prompted this article is referenced with sources under the heading "Why XCheck is in the news". Neither the article nor the comment you're replying to says anything about data breaches.
It makes sense from a technical perspective why you'd build a system like XCheck. The problem is that once you build XCheck you actually need to say to your C-suite and PR department "Actually no, you can't say we treat everyone equally, we're manually going in and exempting certain people from scrutiny, and that's entirely within our discretion."
The problem isn't technical, it's legal - you can't build a system that operates one way and then publicly misrepresent it.
The problem isn't technical, it's legal - you can't build a system that operates one way and then publicly misrepresent it.
Legal will certainly advise leadership they can continue claiming that the system treats everyone equally, because scope of the word system includes the entire Trust organization people + automation, and “equally” can mean almost whatever Mark needs it to mean.
“Senator, thank you for the question. We treat everyone equally. To be clear this means every single user on our platform is subject to the same terms of service they agreed to when signing up.”
“Senator, thank you for the question. We treat everyone equally. To be clear this means every single user on our platform is subject to the same terms of service they agreed to when signing up.”
By the definitions you're using, Mark Zuckerberg personally logging in to the database and type DELETE FROM USERS WHERE "Policital_Affiliation_heuristic" == "Conservative".
So fine, if you want to define the words as meaning something they clearly don't, and want to try and fight that battle in the media... ok. But almost certainly the first thing that happens is something exactly like this - some nerdy engineering comes out and goes "Well no actually, we manually intervene for the people we like". And then you get to go back to Congress and explain to them why you clearly lied to them, and you're not going to get out of that by using Mark Zuckerberg's pure eye-watering levels of charisma.
So fine, if you want to define the words as meaning something they clearly don't, and want to try and fight that battle in the media... ok. But almost certainly the first thing that happens is something exactly like this - some nerdy engineering comes out and goes "Well no actually, we manually intervene for the people we like". And then you get to go back to Congress and explain to them why you clearly lied to them, and you're not going to get out of that by using Mark Zuckerberg's pure eye-watering levels of charisma.
Legally, their TOS probably allows them to be completely opaque and arbitrary.
And any system which involves reporting from the public will need to build a "this account gets lots of false reports of category X, to save time assume they're all false" system. As well as "all the reports made by this user are bogus".
And any system which involves reporting from the public will need to build a "this account gets lots of false reports of category X, to save time assume they're all false" system. As well as "all the reports made by this user are bogus".
There are no laws which say a company has to be transparent and accurate when discussing its moderation systems.
Given that people pay to advertise on facebook, any false statements they make about their moderation systems via the internet almost certainly constitute wire fraud.
It would almost certainly not.
As Matt Levine says, “everything is securities fraud,” and this is probably the area of greatest exposure for a company with a substantial degree of departure between their stated practices and their actual practices.
It’s not likely to be more than a nuisance to defend and not terribly expensive to settle, but an enterprising plaintiff’s lawyer could probably find a cause of action that passes summary judgment.
It’s not likely to be more than a nuisance to defend and not terribly expensive to settle, but an enterprising plaintiff’s lawyer could probably find a cause of action that passes summary judgment.
Most carefully claim that the laws they write apply equally to everyone, not that they equally apply them to everyone
Which (and I hate to ever sound likey I'm defending Facebook) is quite common in legal systems.
Which (and I hate to ever sound likey I'm defending Facebook) is quite common in legal systems.
One user type the law binds but does not protect, and another user type the law protects but does not bind.
I think the tag based system infers everyone is treated the same. Everyone can get the tag.
That's opposed to an Id or different account types, where if you didn't register with a specific type, you cannot be granted that same exemption
That's opposed to an Id or different account types, where if you didn't register with a specific type, you cannot be granted that same exemption
Why can’t they exactly?
As facebook shows you can, and get away with it.
> "Actually no, you can't say we treat everyone equally, we're manually going in and exempting certain people from scrutiny, and that's entirely within our discretion."
Isn't that literally what Twitter does as well? Making exceptions for Politicians and Government Representatives? Or does HN's bias towards Twitter exempt it from any form of scrutiny?
Isn't that literally what Twitter does as well? Making exceptions for Politicians and Government Representatives? Or does HN's bias towards Twitter exempt it from any form of scrutiny?
I don't think this has too much with celebrities, but about exempting "problematic people" from being repeatedly banned by algorithmic and applied AI systems. IOW, they don't have controls over internal mechanisms of so-called algorithms, and a separate suppression system is used to reduce harm.
[flagged]
Please don't post flamewar comments to HN. You perpetuated this one badly and that's not cool.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
When it comes to India, Twitter is typically at the forefront of mainstreaming propaganda and selectively applying rules. So my perspective comes from that (since this article concerns feud between Meta and The Wire which covers India). Whenever Twitter gets mentioned (atleast in HN) concerning its role in policy with regards to politicians it mostly gets a pass.
Let me put it this way: what you feel Meta is doing in the West, is what many in India (like me) feel Twitter is doing here. And the sentiment I see is mostly anti Meta and mostly pro Twitter here.
After all it is my perspective and I could be wrong (as I obviously don't have statistics to say if HN definitely has a Twitter bias or not). But I believe I have a right to express my opinion on what I feel is HN sentiment towards big tech censorship (which mostly circles around Meta but rarely around Twitter).
Let me put it this way: what you feel Meta is doing in the West, is what many in India (like me) feel Twitter is doing here. And the sentiment I see is mostly anti Meta and mostly pro Twitter here.
After all it is my perspective and I could be wrong (as I obviously don't have statistics to say if HN definitely has a Twitter bias or not). But I believe I have a right to express my opinion on what I feel is HN sentiment towards big tech censorship (which mostly circles around Meta but rarely around Twitter).
I haven't seen twitter getting a pass? When trump finally got the boot, the comments were along the lines of "the only thing that can't get you kicked off of twitter is to run an insurrection against the US government"
I think this is mostly about Twitter's refusal to censor on behalf of the Indian government; see eg https://www.vice.com/en/article/5d3bmn/twitter-censorship-in...
The OP is a very strong BJP supporter (see comment history), but even so it's a weird take.
The OP is a very strong BJP supporter (see comment history), but even so it's a weird take.
> I think this is mostly about Twitter's refusal to censor on behalf of the Indian government; see eg https://www.vice.com/en/article/5d3bmn/twitter-censorship-in...
Vice is part of the same Leftist Media cabal.
> The OP is a very strong BJP supporter (see comment history), but even so it's a weird take.
LMFAO no. It is mostly about Twitter censoring accounts that are pro-Hindu: https://twitter.com/aranganathan72/status/132892246447524659...
And the ban was done after Opposition Party supporting Bureaucrat (from the IPS cadre) threatened to get the account banned. Basically Twitter acted on behalf of the Opposition not the Ruling Party. You can read the full story here [1].
If Twitter is truly unbiased, it wouldn't be siding so openly with Opposition Parties in India.
Quoting the user (TrueIndology) who was banned:
`She asked me for my personal details. I refused to divulge those details. She then said "Your time is up". And boom. My account was suspended within 5 minutes. Twitter sent no mail. Gave no reason. Simply suspended my account`.
The Government of India has authority to regulate Law and pass Executive Orders to entities operating within the Country. The Opposition of India has no such powers. Yet Twitter defied the Government's Executive Orders but did not defy the Opposition Party Bureaucrat's diktat. That should tell you how openly biased Twitter is.
Anyways, being a "strong BJP supporter" is not a crime on HN I presume. Where propaganda thrives it is better to be a strong, vocal supporter. Even if all alone and in minority.
[1]: https://www.opindia.com/2020/11/twitter-suspends-trueindolog...
Vice is part of the same Leftist Media cabal.
> The OP is a very strong BJP supporter (see comment history), but even so it's a weird take.
LMFAO no. It is mostly about Twitter censoring accounts that are pro-Hindu: https://twitter.com/aranganathan72/status/132892246447524659...
And the ban was done after Opposition Party supporting Bureaucrat (from the IPS cadre) threatened to get the account banned. Basically Twitter acted on behalf of the Opposition not the Ruling Party. You can read the full story here [1].
If Twitter is truly unbiased, it wouldn't be siding so openly with Opposition Parties in India.
Quoting the user (TrueIndology) who was banned:
`She asked me for my personal details. I refused to divulge those details. She then said "Your time is up". And boom. My account was suspended within 5 minutes. Twitter sent no mail. Gave no reason. Simply suspended my account`.
The Government of India has authority to regulate Law and pass Executive Orders to entities operating within the Country. The Opposition of India has no such powers. Yet Twitter defied the Government's Executive Orders but did not defy the Opposition Party Bureaucrat's diktat. That should tell you how openly biased Twitter is.
Anyways, being a "strong BJP supporter" is not a crime on HN I presume. Where propaganda thrives it is better to be a strong, vocal supporter. Even if all alone and in minority.
[1]: https://www.opindia.com/2020/11/twitter-suspends-trueindolog...
You linked OPIndia website as your reference, can you please share even one article posted on OPIndia against BJP or current Modi government?
This comment made me actually read the OPIndia article and wow it's pretty bad. To quote:
> The TrueIndology account is very popular and has thousands of followers. The person behind the account is a meticulous fact-checker who corrects wrong and distorted claims often pushed as history mostly by left-liberals, and cites actual sources to debunk myths and leftist propaganda on Indian history. Though the reasons for the accoun[sic] suspension are not clear, it comes just a day after he had ‘fact-checked’ and had idulged[sic] in an online arguement[sic] with senior IPS officer D Roopa.
Spelling errors are reproduced as is.
It's surprising how closely the "left-liberals"/"leftist propaganda" rhetoric matches "Leftist Media cabal"/"Western media propaganda outlets" language of the OP.
> The TrueIndology account is very popular and has thousands of followers. The person behind the account is a meticulous fact-checker who corrects wrong and distorted claims often pushed as history mostly by left-liberals, and cites actual sources to debunk myths and leftist propaganda on Indian history. Though the reasons for the accoun[sic] suspension are not clear, it comes just a day after he had ‘fact-checked’ and had idulged[sic] in an online arguement[sic] with senior IPS officer D Roopa.
Spelling errors are reproduced as is.
It's surprising how closely the "left-liberals"/"leftist propaganda" rhetoric matches "Leftist Media cabal"/"Western media propaganda outlets" language of the OP.
> I think this is mostly about Twitter's refusal to censor on behalf of the Indian government; see eg https://www.vice.com/en/article/5d3bmn/twitter-censorship-in...
I'll explain the context behind this because Vice (as is usual with Western media propaganda outlets) does not provide any details.
The "journalist" in question, who goes by the handle @zoo_bear, tweeted out a clip from a heated National TV debate between a ruling party spokesperson and another Islamic scholar. Some unsavory remarks were made by the Islamic scholar on the ruling party spokesperson's Religious beliefs (she is a Hindu). She retaliated in the TV debate with her own unsavory remarks on his Islamic beliefs.
Now this "journalist", instead of putting out the entire clip, decided to cut the clip to only show the spokesperson's remarks which went viral not just in India but across the World. She not only received beheading/death threats but was also forced to apologize, tender resignation from the Party and go into hiding. Then after that, 4 other Hindus (completely unconnected to this TV debate) were beheaded, by Islamic terrorists, as a "revenge" for what she said. Only later did the entire clip surface and things cooled down. But by then, the damage was done. Was any of this reported by Vice? Nope. This is the kind of propaganda that Western media outlets indulge in.
Now the Government of India wanted to take this out-of-context Tweet down (as well as suspend the "journalist"s account) as he continued to put out partial information just to keep the communal pot boiling.
India is a multi-cultural, multi-religious democracy with a billion+ people. Any riots that break out has potential to turn into communal clashes on a pan-India scale. The Government, unlike Western Governments, has extra responsibility to take care of the social fabric of the Nation apart from protecting the country from adversaries on our borders.
So the Government of India is perfectly justified in requesting take down. Twitter not taking it down is purely politically motivated. It is not like it hasn't taken down accounts/tweets at all. It has done so multiple times on behest of opposition party members.
I'll explain the context behind this because Vice (as is usual with Western media propaganda outlets) does not provide any details.
The "journalist" in question, who goes by the handle @zoo_bear, tweeted out a clip from a heated National TV debate between a ruling party spokesperson and another Islamic scholar. Some unsavory remarks were made by the Islamic scholar on the ruling party spokesperson's Religious beliefs (she is a Hindu). She retaliated in the TV debate with her own unsavory remarks on his Islamic beliefs.
Now this "journalist", instead of putting out the entire clip, decided to cut the clip to only show the spokesperson's remarks which went viral not just in India but across the World. She not only received beheading/death threats but was also forced to apologize, tender resignation from the Party and go into hiding. Then after that, 4 other Hindus (completely unconnected to this TV debate) were beheaded, by Islamic terrorists, as a "revenge" for what she said. Only later did the entire clip surface and things cooled down. But by then, the damage was done. Was any of this reported by Vice? Nope. This is the kind of propaganda that Western media outlets indulge in.
Now the Government of India wanted to take this out-of-context Tweet down (as well as suspend the "journalist"s account) as he continued to put out partial information just to keep the communal pot boiling.
India is a multi-cultural, multi-religious democracy with a billion+ people. Any riots that break out has potential to turn into communal clashes on a pan-India scale. The Government, unlike Western Governments, has extra responsibility to take care of the social fabric of the Nation apart from protecting the country from adversaries on our borders.
So the Government of India is perfectly justified in requesting take down. Twitter not taking it down is purely politically motivated. It is not like it hasn't taken down accounts/tweets at all. It has done so multiple times on behest of opposition party members.
Note that this explanation is only one of the (many) incidents outlined in the (long) Vice post. As the Vice article points out, the tweet was over 4 years old when he was arrested for it. The Indian article[1] about the arrest doesn't make any claims about the tweet going viral or being responsible for the things the OP is claiming here. Notably neither the police themselves not the complainant make these claims.
This quote summarises the overall situation reasonably well:
> A 2021 transparency report released by Twitter revealed that India was the single largest source of government takedown requests in the second half of 2020—accounting for 25 percent of the global volume. The compliance rate for these requests was 0.6 percent in India, as opposed to 30 percent globally.
[1] https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/delhi/altnews-co-fo...
This quote summarises the overall situation reasonably well:
> A 2021 transparency report released by Twitter revealed that India was the single largest source of government takedown requests in the second half of 2020—accounting for 25 percent of the global volume. The compliance rate for these requests was 0.6 percent in India, as opposed to 30 percent globally.
[1] https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/delhi/altnews-co-fo...
> Note that this explanation is only one of the (many) incidents outlined in the (long) Vice post
Where is this explanation? There is not even one mention of Nupur Sharma in the Vice article. Quote from the article.
> the tweet was over 4 years old when he was arrested for it
Nice deflection. This is not the tweet I was talking about.
I was talking about this: https://www.opindia.com/2022/06/islamist-mobs-nupur-sharma-p...
and this https://www.opindia.com/2022/06/alt-news-mohammed-zubair-del...
> The Indian article[1] about the arrest doesn't make any claims about the tweet going viral or being responsible for the things the OP is claiming here.
Of course the Indian Authorities are going to charge him for the most heinous/offensive tweet. And they will choose the one that will stick when they prosecute him in a Court of Law. That does not mean what he did, did not lead to beheading of 4 innocent Hindus. This is well documented fact that the communal tension was result of him sharing a doctored clip that went viral.
> The Indian article[1] about the arrest doesn't make any claims about the tweet going viral or being responsible for the things the OP is claiming here
LMFAO from Indian Express of all the papers? The ones who falsely published a report that Indian Army had moved towards Delhi to do a coup on the previous Government of India? [1] and [2].
Please refer to better sources.
> A 2021 transparency report released by Twitter revealed that India was the single largest source of government takedown requests in the second half of 2020—accounting for 25 percent of the global volume
Ah yes. And we should take Twitter at its word. Twitter can also reveal exactly what those tweets were which the GoI wanted taken down. I bet at least half of them involve some fabrication (like The Wire BS that is currently being propagated) or something communal to stoke riots and unrest in India.
[1]: https://www.businessinsider.com/indian-newspaper-slammed-for...
[2]: https://www.sundayguardianlive.com/news/upa-2-top-leaders-wa...
Where is this explanation? There is not even one mention of Nupur Sharma in the Vice article. Quote from the article.
> the tweet was over 4 years old when he was arrested for it
Nice deflection. This is not the tweet I was talking about.
I was talking about this: https://www.opindia.com/2022/06/islamist-mobs-nupur-sharma-p...
and this https://www.opindia.com/2022/06/alt-news-mohammed-zubair-del...
> The Indian article[1] about the arrest doesn't make any claims about the tweet going viral or being responsible for the things the OP is claiming here.
Of course the Indian Authorities are going to charge him for the most heinous/offensive tweet. And they will choose the one that will stick when they prosecute him in a Court of Law. That does not mean what he did, did not lead to beheading of 4 innocent Hindus. This is well documented fact that the communal tension was result of him sharing a doctored clip that went viral.
> The Indian article[1] about the arrest doesn't make any claims about the tweet going viral or being responsible for the things the OP is claiming here
LMFAO from Indian Express of all the papers? The ones who falsely published a report that Indian Army had moved towards Delhi to do a coup on the previous Government of India? [1] and [2].
Please refer to better sources.
> A 2021 transparency report released by Twitter revealed that India was the single largest source of government takedown requests in the second half of 2020—accounting for 25 percent of the global volume
Ah yes. And we should take Twitter at its word. Twitter can also reveal exactly what those tweets were which the GoI wanted taken down. I bet at least half of them involve some fabrication (like The Wire BS that is currently being propagated) or something communal to stoke riots and unrest in India.
[1]: https://www.businessinsider.com/indian-newspaper-slammed-for...
[2]: https://www.sundayguardianlive.com/news/upa-2-top-leaders-wa...
I have no idea who Nupur Sharma is. Instead I was referring to the mention of the arrest of @zoo_bear in the linked article.
>> the tweet was over 4 years old when he was arrested for it
> Nice deflection. This is not the tweet I was talking about.
Good for you? How exactly was I supposed to know this when the tweet I was talking about was the one mentioned in the article you were so keen to dispute?
> LMFAO
Really?
>> the tweet was over 4 years old when he was arrested for it
> Nice deflection. This is not the tweet I was talking about.
Good for you? How exactly was I supposed to know this when the tweet I was talking about was the one mentioned in the article you were so keen to dispute?
> LMFAO
Really?
caslon(1)
I see zereo issue with what Facebook is doing. They are indeed "treating users equally." To not have special measures in place protecting accounts that are orders of magnitude more likely to receive false reports would be unequal treatment, and would result in celebrities' accounts being very frequently taken down.
"Unequal treatment" would mean: these users are not subject to our policies. That's not the case here. XCheck just turns off the "we receive 100 reports, an algo shuts that account down" phenomenon. Humans review those cases manually, and the account can still be suspended or banned. How in the world could that be contentious?
"Unequal treatment" would mean: these users are not subject to our policies. That's not the case here. XCheck just turns off the "we receive 100 reports, an algo shuts that account down" phenomenon. Humans review those cases manually, and the account can still be suspended or banned. How in the world could that be contentious?
What they are doing may or may not be necessary and practical. It may or may not be fair or right.
What it empathically is not, by definition, is "equal treatment". It's existence is epitome of unequal treatment.
What it empathically is not, by definition, is "equal treatment". It's existence is epitome of unequal treatment.
That's why we don't talk about "equal treatment" in diversity and inclusion, we talk about "equitable treatment".
Same but different here.
"Equality" is an inherently unfair concept because not all humans come into the system with equal footing, or in equal conditions.
And so to simply, and blindly, treat everyone identically - what you mean to say is "equal" here - would be a bad approach.
Pedantically speaking, you can certainly argue that "equal" is not grammatically correct, but I think everyone else understands what's being said.
Same but different here.
"Equality" is an inherently unfair concept because not all humans come into the system with equal footing, or in equal conditions.
And so to simply, and blindly, treat everyone identically - what you mean to say is "equal" here - would be a bad approach.
Pedantically speaking, you can certainly argue that "equal" is not grammatically correct, but I think everyone else understands what's being said.
Thanks for your reply. The first few paragraphs are educational and appreciated.
We may disagree on the last one - I find "everybody understands..." assumptions can range from mostly happen to be true to tragically incorrect to manipulatively deceptive. Based on other discussions in this thread, I'm not alone. The fact that you indicate diversity and inclusion has moved away from equal treatment phrase, that Equal vs Fair is now being taught as basic differentiation just like Pretend vs Real, and Opinion vs Fact in school, also I believe supports my claim these are meaningfully, substantially, importantly different concepts. Again, I think they get confused enough, intentionally or unintentionally, that "everybody understands" is just too dangerous of an approach, even if well meant.
We may disagree on the last one - I find "everybody understands..." assumptions can range from mostly happen to be true to tragically incorrect to manipulatively deceptive. Based on other discussions in this thread, I'm not alone. The fact that you indicate diversity and inclusion has moved away from equal treatment phrase, that Equal vs Fair is now being taught as basic differentiation just like Pretend vs Real, and Opinion vs Fact in school, also I believe supports my claim these are meaningfully, substantially, importantly different concepts. Again, I think they get confused enough, intentionally or unintentionally, that "everybody understands" is just too dangerous of an approach, even if well meant.
Your stance, as described, doesn't make any sense. You're being willfully obtuse here. Equal treatment would mean that users are treated the same by the company. They are not, in the same situation.
Imagine the following three enforcement schemes for taking down a post due to reports:
* if your post gets reported 10 times, it gets taken down
* if your post gets reported (# of followers / 10) times, it gets taken down
* if your post gets reported (# of followers * 100) times, it gets taken down
Which of these are fair in your opinion? For an account with a huge # of followers, the last one effectively means their posts can't be taken down.
It seems a system like XCheck is a step function where at a certain point, you get exempt from certain checks altogether.
The "equality" here could refer to each account's potential to go through the vetting that would give them exempt status.
==============
Maybe this deserves a separate response, but another way to think of this is to compare it to income taxes. There are different income brackets that affect your marginal tax rate in the US. Is it equal for everyone to pay the same dollar amount in income taxes? The same rate? A progressive rate? Are people treated equally under the law in all these cases? In none of them?
* if your post gets reported 10 times, it gets taken down
* if your post gets reported (# of followers / 10) times, it gets taken down
* if your post gets reported (# of followers * 100) times, it gets taken down
Which of these are fair in your opinion? For an account with a huge # of followers, the last one effectively means their posts can't be taken down.
It seems a system like XCheck is a step function where at a certain point, you get exempt from certain checks altogether.
The "equality" here could refer to each account's potential to go through the vetting that would give them exempt status.
==============
Maybe this deserves a separate response, but another way to think of this is to compare it to income taxes. There are different income brackets that affect your marginal tax rate in the US. Is it equal for everyone to pay the same dollar amount in income taxes? The same rate? A progressive rate? Are people treated equally under the law in all these cases? In none of them?
> Which of these are fair in your opinion?
Who said anything about fair? The only one that is "equal treatment" is the one where 10 reports takes them down. It's shitty policy, but that's a different question isn't it? Number of followers playing a role is where treatment stops being equal. I'm not arguing what's the right way to handle this, I'm just contradicting rhetoric aiming to justify their policy by fallacious argument.
Edited to add: I don't think tax code is meant to or treats people equally, even though they're all subject to the same rules. The rules explicitly divide taxpayers into categories with different treatment.
Who said anything about fair? The only one that is "equal treatment" is the one where 10 reports takes them down. It's shitty policy, but that's a different question isn't it? Number of followers playing a role is where treatment stops being equal. I'm not arguing what's the right way to handle this, I'm just contradicting rhetoric aiming to justify their policy by fallacious argument.
Edited to add: I don't think tax code is meant to or treats people equally, even though they're all subject to the same rules. The rules explicitly divide taxpayers into categories with different treatment.
I like that they've started teaching difference between "fair" and "equal" in kindergarten now in Canada. This is not meant as a slight, just a generational gap - I myself was not taught that as a kid and it took me way too long to realize that "fair treatment" and "equal treatment" can be wildly different things.
Xcheck is, by definition, at its very core, not "equal treatment". Equal treatment is easy and uncontroversial to define.
It may or may not be "fair treatment". That is always subjective and depends on goals and objectives and frameworks.
Something like Xcheck may or may not be necessary. It's interesting to read about problem it's trying to solve and discuss whether and how much it succeeds and at what price and what limitations.
What Xcheck does not get to do, however, is present / defend itself as "equal treatment",and in any meaningful discussion we should not mix and match or treat those as synonyms - that's confusing and unproductive at best, deceptive at worst.
Xcheck is, by definition, at its very core, not "equal treatment". Equal treatment is easy and uncontroversial to define.
It may or may not be "fair treatment". That is always subjective and depends on goals and objectives and frameworks.
Something like Xcheck may or may not be necessary. It's interesting to read about problem it's trying to solve and discuss whether and how much it succeeds and at what price and what limitations.
What Xcheck does not get to do, however, is present / defend itself as "equal treatment",and in any meaningful discussion we should not mix and match or treat those as synonyms - that's confusing and unproductive at best, deceptive at worst.
I wish they would explain what xcheck is and how it works before the talk about the problems with it. This reads like a blog post to other Integrity FB engineers that already know that system.
It’s explained later on but I could be clearer.
XCheck is a system that supports tagging specific accounts with tags that exempt that account from certain integrity enforcement. In the post I give an example of a tag that used to exempt accounts from the fake account checkpoint. Applying these tags is usually a manual process and usually carefully vetted.
XCheck is a system that supports tagging specific accounts with tags that exempt that account from certain integrity enforcement. In the post I give an example of a tag that used to exempt accounts from the fake account checkpoint. Applying these tags is usually a manual process and usually carefully vetted.
You yourself claim that you are only aware of Xcheck "features" since 2021,
To clarify, one of the requirement of this regulation is:
Very simply put, large social media platforms are legally required to respond and delete content when requested by government representatives.
Under such a scenario, can you confidently say that XCheck hasn't been extended with new features, like a tag that allows a user to immediately flag posts that must be compulsorily taken down when the particular user reports it? It seems a very obvious extension when you consider the political demands that are placed on Meta from around the world, and in India in particular.
As of June 2021 no XCheck tag I knew of allowed a user to take down content at will.
To clarify, one of the requirement of this regulation is:
Under the new Intermediaries Rules, intermediaries must *complete* the takedown process under Section 79(3) of the IT Act, within 36 hours.
Very simply put, large social media platforms are legally required to respond and delete content when requested by government representatives.
Under such a scenario, can you confidently say that XCheck hasn't been extended with new features, like a tag that allows a user to immediately flag posts that must be compulsorily taken down when the particular user reports it? It seems a very obvious extension when you consider the political demands that are placed on Meta from around the world, and in India in particular.
Yeah, it would be easier to understand your article if you start it with an introduction to what XCheck is what problem it is trying to solve.
> a system that exists and mostly works is preferred to a hypothetical perfect system that is never built.
At any sufficiently large scale - especially with a product you're not paying for - this is the best you're likely to get. Once you fully understand and embrace this, your stress levels about imperfection tend to go way down.
At any sufficiently large scale - especially with a product you're not paying for - this is the best you're likely to get. Once you fully understand and embrace this, your stress levels about imperfection tend to go way down.
trasz(2)
I think that the key takeaway from the entire Wire vs Meta fiasco is that there is a lot of absolutely weird Spy vs. Spy behavior going in the Indian political and media industries.
I was initially extremely sympathetic to the story presented by The Wire, because it's quite believable that Meta/FB would go to extreme lengths to try to distance themselves from such a situation, but the facts ... just ... don't add up. As Alex Stamos has noted, there is little debate regarding collusion between Meta's "government relations" people and policy groups, so that's not really much of a scandal -- it's not like Meta will deny that Modi was treated like a divine being when he visited their campus, so the idea that his people can easily call in a favor to crush a social media post won't really surprise anyone.
The bulletproof evidence with DKIM authentication and a video of a logged-in admin instance doesn't look so bulletproof after all, based on the credible reports from those who know how Meta's admin tooling actually looks and functions, and those with other DKIM authenticated emails from the fb.com domain.
So, the question is, what's the agenda here? Why would someone go through all of this effort, to create a scandal out of something that is not very far from the truth? What's the point of this entire thing? Maybe this is like Nick Denton and Gawker losing their entire business over the stupidest sex tape story ever; or maybe this is part of something else that requires domain knowledge regarding Indian politics and media to understand (do page views monetize so well that this mini-scandal is going to be super-profitable to The Wire? Highly doubtful, right? What could they possibly get out of this?).
The whole thing is just really weird. It's also a major distraction from the very real problems that Meta doesn't even try to hide. Meta's relationship with the governments in various countries -- including the United States -- is way too close for comfort, and absolutely toxic on multiple levels. If this story turns out to be fake news, it'll do a lot to help the company deny, deflect and discredit the next real scandal. I think this is what the wacky conspiracy theorists call "4D chess," but I don't think that's what's happening here.
The true story behind all of this is bound to be very strange, and very stupid.
I was initially extremely sympathetic to the story presented by The Wire, because it's quite believable that Meta/FB would go to extreme lengths to try to distance themselves from such a situation, but the facts ... just ... don't add up. As Alex Stamos has noted, there is little debate regarding collusion between Meta's "government relations" people and policy groups, so that's not really much of a scandal -- it's not like Meta will deny that Modi was treated like a divine being when he visited their campus, so the idea that his people can easily call in a favor to crush a social media post won't really surprise anyone.
The bulletproof evidence with DKIM authentication and a video of a logged-in admin instance doesn't look so bulletproof after all, based on the credible reports from those who know how Meta's admin tooling actually looks and functions, and those with other DKIM authenticated emails from the fb.com domain.
So, the question is, what's the agenda here? Why would someone go through all of this effort, to create a scandal out of something that is not very far from the truth? What's the point of this entire thing? Maybe this is like Nick Denton and Gawker losing their entire business over the stupidest sex tape story ever; or maybe this is part of something else that requires domain knowledge regarding Indian politics and media to understand (do page views monetize so well that this mini-scandal is going to be super-profitable to The Wire? Highly doubtful, right? What could they possibly get out of this?).
The whole thing is just really weird. It's also a major distraction from the very real problems that Meta doesn't even try to hide. Meta's relationship with the governments in various countries -- including the United States -- is way too close for comfort, and absolutely toxic on multiple levels. If this story turns out to be fake news, it'll do a lot to help the company deny, deflect and discredit the next real scandal. I think this is what the wacky conspiracy theorists call "4D chess," but I don't think that's what's happening here.
The true story behind all of this is bound to be very strange, and very stupid.
Based on my conversation with the editor of the Wire, he seems sincere in his belief in this source. He is a respected journalist with decades of experience so he wouldn’t trash that just for a few clicks.
My read is that he wants this story to be true so much that he’s ignoring evidence to the contrary.
As for why the source is doing this, I couldn’t say.
My read is that he wants this story to be true so much that he’s ignoring evidence to the contrary.
As for why the source is doing this, I couldn’t say.
Fwiw Devesh Kumar has to be in on the fabrication given that he provided an impossible story as to why the email screenshots they initially posted showed 2021 (impossible because the day of the week didn’t match the displayed date, indicating the screenshot was fabricated).
It also takes a special level of suspension of disbelief to think that Andy Stone somehow writes emails in Indian English and that XCheck gives privileges to take down content from other users.
It also takes a special level of suspension of disbelief to think that Andy Stone somehow writes emails in Indian English and that XCheck gives privileges to take down content from other users.
[deleted]
Thanks, this is very helpful. It would be wild if this was a very carefully crafted campaign meant to bait The Wire into blowing itself up over an almost-true but totally fake news story. Now I really want to know where this all ends up.
I was sympathetic that they were getting played when the first story came out but after they doubled down on it not once but twice, and seeing the “evidence” they’re putting out, it appears that at least one of their employees is in on the fabrication and regardless the whole outlet is willing to ignore basic journalistic standards in reporting this story.
If the story is false, it's not just the source, at least the tech person making the videos at Wire is in on it.
The wire is notorious for propoganda hit pieces in Indian political landscape. Based kn conversation is not enough merit when you see kind of reports the wire dishes out.
I'd speculate this is part of an "Opposition research" move by a political party that might benefit.
The extreme lengths that these people seem to have gone to is shocking. Whatever it is, FB has the evidence on their servers as Alex Stamos points out since they created a Workspace instance.
The extreme lengths that these people seem to have gone to is shocking. Whatever it is, FB has the evidence on their servers as Alex Stamos points out since they created a Workspace instance.
The first thing that comes in to mind is the Bezos leaked nudes.
At the time there was a story about the Saudi's being involved and some link to Trump.
Years later it came out that Bezos's investigator knew pretty early on that it was likely the brother of Bezos's girlfriend, however the National Enquirer was already in trouble for allegedly acting as a foreign agent for the Saudi's. By seeding the fake Saudi story they were able to apply huge pressure on the Enquirer.
Maybe something similar is happening here, Meta is under legal pressure somewhere on this topic. It doesn't have to be true, it just has to annoy the wrong politician/judge.
At the time there was a story about the Saudi's being involved and some link to Trump.
Years later it came out that Bezos's investigator knew pretty early on that it was likely the brother of Bezos's girlfriend, however the National Enquirer was already in trouble for allegedly acting as a foreign agent for the Saudi's. By seeding the fake Saudi story they were able to apply huge pressure on the Enquirer.
Maybe something similar is happening here, Meta is under legal pressure somewhere on this topic. It doesn't have to be true, it just has to annoy the wrong politician/judge.
I’m nitpicking, but the reason Gawker went bust was because someone went out of their way to make sure they did. Sure the tape was the proximate cause, but if it hadn’t been that, it’d have been something else.
Peter Thiel was going around with an open checkbook, actively looking for anyone who may have a viable case against Gawker. If it hadn't been Hulk Hogan's sex tape case, it would have been unlawful termination, or some other grievance that involved Gawker Media in some way.
Edit: lol, no wonder parent & gp were circumspect on names - I'm getting downvoted :'-D Anyhow, here are my sources:
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2018/02/hogan-t...
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/05/the-b...
Edit: lol, no wonder parent & gp were circumspect on names - I'm getting downvoted :'-D Anyhow, here are my sources:
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2018/02/hogan-t...
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/05/the-b...
Yup. Gawker was victim of a targeted assassination. Sure, their editor gave a truly disastrous deposition which probably directly caused them to lose that particular case more than any other single factor, but if it hadn’t been that case, it would have been the next fact pattern where a well funded opposition would have even a slim chance at nailing them to the wall.
There’s plenty Gawker did that I didn’t like or didn’t care for, but as a proponent of free speech, I see nothing positive about them losing that shit.
There’s plenty Gawker did that I didn’t like or didn’t care for, but as a proponent of free speech, I see nothing positive about them losing that shit.
Thiel found a way to hack around New York Times Co. v Sullivan.
This is a mildly interesting post only because of how it comes up to, but avoids ever talking about, the central flaw in the system it describes — they're conflating several things without ever really acknowledging that they're different. Theres "integrity", which is a Meta-internal term; verification of ID, which is a far deeper rabbit hole than they're going to go into; abuse; and undesirable behavior. They're all different things.
> They're all different things.
Different but related, I would say. For example abuse of a service and undesirable behaviour on a service could be thought of as different points on a spectrum.
Different but related, I would say. For example abuse of a service and undesirable behaviour on a service could be thought of as different points on a spectrum.
"The number of reports number in the millions per day. That's too many for human moderators"
Isn't Reddit the counterexample?
A dozen of us moderated a controversial sub with 2M users, no problem.
Isn't Reddit the counterexample?
A dozen of us moderated a controversial sub with 2M users, no problem.
2M “subscribed” users to a subreddit is about 10% or 200,000 daily viewers with about 1% of those commenting and 0.1% posting so 2,000 comments and 200 posts per day. Some subs will be more
or less but that’s the magnitudes we’re talking about.
The equivalent situation assuming mods review every comment would be a subreddit with 1 billion users. If mods are only reviewing reports which is some small percentage of comments then adjust accordingly.
The equivalent situation assuming mods review every comment would be a subreddit with 1 billion users. If mods are only reviewing reports which is some small percentage of comments then adjust accordingly.
> more review every comment
Moderation workflow starts with user-reports on posts/comments. At scale, you can set a threshold as well, which dramatically reduces the number of items to review.
Obviously, scaleup the number of reviewers. Obviously, add some obvious algorithms: warnings, temporary/permanent bans, etc. ...
Moderation workflow starts with user-reports on posts/comments. At scale, you can set a threshold as well, which dramatically reduces the number of items to review.
Obviously, scaleup the number of reviewers. Obviously, add some obvious algorithms: warnings, temporary/permanent bans, etc. ...
Very well put, it's not even close to the same ballpark. It would also be like moderating a 1 billion user subreddit where nearly every single post is off topic and comes from different users, whereas in subreddits a few super users often produce a huge percent of the content.
So for a few billion users, you need tens of thousands of moderators, assuming that ratio holds?
This is a very efficient moderation force. I'd be happy to get away with 10s of thousands per billion. That's still under 100 per million. Under 1 per 10,000.
With 2 million users, I imagine it would be on the order of thousands of posts per day, and maybe hundreds of reports?
Which sub? I think people could claim they're successfully moderating subs like the_donald and wallstreetbets. I would disagree.
Try multiplying your numbers by a few thousand, billions of people use lets platforms daily. Reddit user interaction is also very different in regard to celebrities.
> A dozen of us moderated a controversial sub with 2M users, no problem.
No problem except for people who may have been censored due to bias and error on behalf of moderators.
No problem except for people who may have been censored due to bias and error on behalf of moderators.
Sure, but bias is going to be a factor with any system of evaluation. It happens with human moderators, it happens with automated systems, it happens in corporate performance reviews and it happens among 12 of a defendant’s peers convened for a criminal trial. The existence of bias doesn’t pertain to whether or not a given system is scalable.
It is relevant to the objective existence of a problem though, as well as the magnitude of the importance of the problem (importance may vary substantially per instance of censorship).
My experience:
- yes there inherent bias, accidents etc
- an escalation system can provide double check against petty judgments. Back pressure can be created through the possibility of greater penalties.
- obviously there needs to be bias for credible accounts (older, more active, verified IRL, etc) to avoid throwaways.
If I were designing a system like this, I'd likely implement a reputation system for reporters (users who report, not journalists).
When you report content for the first time your reputation score is 0.5, if the content is of a celebrity or public figure, your reputation will invisibly drop, enough of these and your score will be so low as to not be a useful flag when evaluating whether content is objectionable.
On the other side, if the content is reviewed as violating ToS, your rep will increase.
With a system like this the fake reports and brigading will quickly lose its power, eventually all users who abuse reports will be ranked so low as to not matter.
A threshold of rep score can be set before the content is auto removed. Maybe something like 25pts in order for it to be removed, and that's after adding together all the rep of the reporting users.
When you report content for the first time your reputation score is 0.5, if the content is of a celebrity or public figure, your reputation will invisibly drop, enough of these and your score will be so low as to not be a useful flag when evaluating whether content is objectionable.
On the other side, if the content is reviewed as violating ToS, your rep will increase.
With a system like this the fake reports and brigading will quickly lose its power, eventually all users who abuse reports will be ranked so low as to not matter.
A threshold of rep score can be set before the content is auto removed. Maybe something like 25pts in order for it to be removed, and that's after adding together all the rep of the reporting users.
In a system like this they will play both sides. They do, in fact. Set up accounts that produce content that violates TOS and accounts that report it. The reporting accounts will have their rep increased for correctly reporting tos violations.
Then they use the high rep accounts to brigade and fake report. Or sell them.
They are patient, so even if you make reputation go up slowly, they will just build a pipeline of account harvesting.
Then they use the high rep accounts to brigade and fake report. Or sell them.
They are patient, so even if you make reputation go up slowly, they will just build a pipeline of account harvesting.
I always thought that this is how it already worked.
That being said, the above can also be abused by creating a bunch of high rep accounts or opening up a black market of high rep accounts for sale. It's definitely a higher bar though.
That being said, the above can also be abused by creating a bunch of high rep accounts or opening up a black market of high rep accounts for sale. It's definitely a higher bar though.
> Maybe after 5 or 10 or 100 reports, the system will automatically make the reported content invisible.
This explains why so much "moderation" on sites like Twitter seems to lack any rhyme or reason.
This explains why so much "moderation" on sites like Twitter seems to lack any rhyme or reason.
> That works well for about two weeks until users figure out how to exploit this. They form groups that agree to coordinate to report content. Now reports become lower signal than before, but still somewhat useful. We use the reports, but try to limit exploitation.
What about human employees reviewing users reports, especially randomly picked samples from those that resulted in successful takedowns. If the content was found to be sound under the rules, penalise the reporters. Suspend their ability to make reports (probably in the form of silently ignoring them).
Ie some human moderation should still be done at this scale, but using a combo of random sampling and system-flagged-suspicious.
What about human employees reviewing users reports, especially randomly picked samples from those that resulted in successful takedowns. If the content was found to be sound under the rules, penalise the reporters. Suspend their ability to make reports (probably in the form of silently ignoring them).
Ie some human moderation should still be done at this scale, but using a combo of random sampling and system-flagged-suspicious.
This is Slashdot's meta-moderation system from 20(?) years ago? Logged in users would randomly be selected to check moderation, and accounts that abused their mod points were flagged. Granted, you probably couldn't do that today as you could see meta-moderation brigades out in the wild. Employees should be better, although there's still the chance that an employee might use their position to punish opinions they disagree with.
Yeah I remember slashdot days. Having employees do the meta moderation is key imo, and sounds like would need a second level of meta moderation to review samples of the employees actions.
I’m also very pro a pay for final review, where eg you pay $50-100 or something around that level of inconvenience to have a multi-employee review (each employee reviewing it independently, unknownst to each other, and taking the majority decision).
I’m also very pro a pay for final review, where eg you pay $50-100 or something around that level of inconvenience to have a multi-employee review (each employee reviewing it independently, unknownst to each other, and taking the majority decision).
I remember that. After a while I was “randomly” chosen to meta-mod all the time. But I know others were almost never chosen.
Clearly the actions were reviewed so people’s percentage change could be adjusted based on seeming fairness.
Clearly the actions were reviewed so people’s percentage change could be adjusted based on seeming fairness.
I remember Dota2 (video game) did this, people fake reporting had less reports and they counted for less, while people that were consistently reported players that got punished got more reporting power. Only one report per match "counted" too so a group of player couldn't gang on reports on one player.
Of course that could be abused as well,but you'd have to make a group of people that first got the good rating then reported same people and that would be significantly harder
Of course that could be abused as well,but you'd have to make a group of people that first got the good rating then reported same people and that would be significantly harder
Well that just sounds like Bayes's theorum with extra steps
So that’s why I was never banned from Dota even though I sucked at it.
I'm wondering if it's XCheck that locked-out my later account when it decided by zombie account (I don't have the email address anymore) was a "duplicate". The check condition it fired on was visiting the 2FA settings page. Some nice wf on-call fixed it from an oops task and I don't touch that page anymore. :)
The corruption in tech, perhaps inevitable or intrinsic, looks more
and more like the forces that tore the Soviet Union and then Russia
apart.
1) A "revolution" and promises of new fairness
2) A Nomenklatura
3) The rise of unassailable systems and faith in them
4) Widespread failure and instability of those systems
5) Attempts to stabilise by handing more power to privateers
6) Abuse and corruption run wild amongst new oligarchs
1) A "revolution" and promises of new fairness
2) A Nomenklatura
3) The rise of unassailable systems and faith in them
4) Widespread failure and instability of those systems
5) Attempts to stabilise by handing more power to privateers
6) Abuse and corruption run wild amongst new oligarchs
So I work at Meta and just got MetaMorphized s/@fb/@meta/g.
When I started, my personal account was banned twice on the condition of adjusting 2FA. It was sorted out. I had a past account that I could no longer access as email domains changed, so it looked like I was trying to maintain duplicate accounts. Why it triggered on adjusting 2FA didn't make sense. Then, it wanted me to verify my identity in a way that created a Catch-22 of wanting a login from itself or to a device that didn't have a valid login session. I set the options for better security and left it, rolled all of my personal passwords, eliminated public data, canceled unnecessary social media accounts, and enrolled in security features like Google's Advanced Protection Program. I'm hesitant to make changes risking getting locked-out again.
I recently spoke with someone in Readiness who works with hiring human verifier contractors around the world. A primary issue is scale. You would need to hire the entire world's population to moderate the content being produced. Still there will be bias and misinterpretation of sarcasm, and varying standards of acceptability and decorum. AI is a force-multiplier to an extent, but it takes human judgement to rectify mistakes and data to identify brigades, scammers, terrorists, and political manipulators seeking to exploit an imperfect system. Sadly, the humans with the best judgement typically have better career options that they couldn't be paid to do social media moderation. It can be made better, but the ultimate realization is with even great care, good intentions, and attempts at making things sensible and fair, there are always going to be mistakes. It's trying to minimize mistakes and not enable genocides, election sentiment manipulation, or product scams. It's doable to minimize mistakes, but it take persistent vigilance, wisdom about human nature, and creative solutions to deter and prevent harm while avoiding harming innocent persons. Mistakes are bad and disappointing and it feels bad when they happen.
In case anyone were wondering, the security is the inverse of Twitter's. Everything is logged and access requires a business purpose for a limited time, narrow scope, and approval to get that access. Almost no one has access to production data. PII is taken very seriously. There are no laptops with copies of user data. All laptops are encrypted, just in case, and for general principles. Password complexity requirements are insane. I can see my work/personal FBID user object in the graph, but as soon as I try to prod any links to other users, big warnings appear. There's an army of insane genius security researchers and practitioners who create and deploy defense-in-depth tools for broad and specific solutions to prod, corp, and endpoints that reduce our risks to being compromised, data being exfil'd, and security "oops"es from happening.
Work users who transit through certain "hostile" countries lose some security credentials and access. I'm actually wondering why laptops aren't spot-checked for malware implants and hardware/firmware modifications. I would assume employees with critical access who travel internationally with their work laptops and phones are prime targets.
PS: I wonder if people would pay $X / month (say $199) to have a high-signal social media service that requires a level of "vouching" invitation, names with faces profiles (not visible to the wider internet), sensible/proportional mediation and civilized feedback, politically-neutral, and free speech-loving to increase the sense of community and reduce the potential of anonymous bad actors. 37signals/basecamp accumulated research that showed that smaller communities with faces and real profile names lead to nicer interactions. I don't recall the source, but communities that are defended in terms of politeness and boundaries tend to endure while undefended communities drive away users and tend to disperse.
When I started, my personal account was banned twice on the condition of adjusting 2FA. It was sorted out. I had a past account that I could no longer access as email domains changed, so it looked like I was trying to maintain duplicate accounts. Why it triggered on adjusting 2FA didn't make sense. Then, it wanted me to verify my identity in a way that created a Catch-22 of wanting a login from itself or to a device that didn't have a valid login session. I set the options for better security and left it, rolled all of my personal passwords, eliminated public data, canceled unnecessary social media accounts, and enrolled in security features like Google's Advanced Protection Program. I'm hesitant to make changes risking getting locked-out again.
I recently spoke with someone in Readiness who works with hiring human verifier contractors around the world. A primary issue is scale. You would need to hire the entire world's population to moderate the content being produced. Still there will be bias and misinterpretation of sarcasm, and varying standards of acceptability and decorum. AI is a force-multiplier to an extent, but it takes human judgement to rectify mistakes and data to identify brigades, scammers, terrorists, and political manipulators seeking to exploit an imperfect system. Sadly, the humans with the best judgement typically have better career options that they couldn't be paid to do social media moderation. It can be made better, but the ultimate realization is with even great care, good intentions, and attempts at making things sensible and fair, there are always going to be mistakes. It's trying to minimize mistakes and not enable genocides, election sentiment manipulation, or product scams. It's doable to minimize mistakes, but it take persistent vigilance, wisdom about human nature, and creative solutions to deter and prevent harm while avoiding harming innocent persons. Mistakes are bad and disappointing and it feels bad when they happen.
In case anyone were wondering, the security is the inverse of Twitter's. Everything is logged and access requires a business purpose for a limited time, narrow scope, and approval to get that access. Almost no one has access to production data. PII is taken very seriously. There are no laptops with copies of user data. All laptops are encrypted, just in case, and for general principles. Password complexity requirements are insane. I can see my work/personal FBID user object in the graph, but as soon as I try to prod any links to other users, big warnings appear. There's an army of insane genius security researchers and practitioners who create and deploy defense-in-depth tools for broad and specific solutions to prod, corp, and endpoints that reduce our risks to being compromised, data being exfil'd, and security "oops"es from happening.
Work users who transit through certain "hostile" countries lose some security credentials and access. I'm actually wondering why laptops aren't spot-checked for malware implants and hardware/firmware modifications. I would assume employees with critical access who travel internationally with their work laptops and phones are prime targets.
PS: I wonder if people would pay $X / month (say $199) to have a high-signal social media service that requires a level of "vouching" invitation, names with faces profiles (not visible to the wider internet), sensible/proportional mediation and civilized feedback, politically-neutral, and free speech-loving to increase the sense of community and reduce the potential of anonymous bad actors. 37signals/basecamp accumulated research that showed that smaller communities with faces and real profile names lead to nicer interactions. I don't recall the source, but communities that are defended in terms of politeness and boundaries tend to endure while undefended communities drive away users and tend to disperse.
Don't forget the terrible PTSD endured by the people tasked with eliminating child pornography, who are often contractors and not employees.
Sounds like binary flags that should be weights.
How is it people are allowed to blog about company internal implementation details and numbers barely a year after they leave?
Seems unsurprising to me. If you, as a company, want ironclad confidentiality from people after they leave, that wouldn't be free or automatic. None of what was shared seems to qualify as a trade secret, which would have some protection.
I've never worked somewhere that didn't have me sign some kind of broad NDA-esque clause saying I wouldn't share proprietary or non-public info for a certain period after release (imo, completely reasonably). This blog post is literally nothing BUT non-public proprietary info. Like the parent I'm really surprised the blog author feels comfortable sharing all this. Even if it ended up being technically legal, I have to imagine this kind of thing is extremely frowned upon.
Not to be unduly cynical, but any Public Relations 101 course will introduce the importance of third-party messaging, because statements coming from outside a company directly involved in some (apparent) scandal or other will always carry more weight with the public than an official corporate statement. Additionally, this kind of distance removes certain concerns about legal liability if more insider information is leaked later.
[edit] I have no knowledge or opinion on this story, never read the Wire, and never use Meta or any of its products. It does, however, seem rather clear that governments and corporations concerned with controlling message and image do view social media platforms as the most important battleground in the information wars these days.
[edit] I have no knowledge or opinion on this story, never read the Wire, and never use Meta or any of its products. It does, however, seem rather clear that governments and corporations concerned with controlling message and image do view social media platforms as the most important battleground in the information wars these days.
[deleted]
Why wouldn't they?
Have you ever read your employment contracts? I've never worked somewhere that would allow something like this to be shared so soon after departure.
In my country, unless you're compensated specifically for your silence you're free to ignore such clauses. An employment contract can be definition never restrict you from doing anything after your employment has ended. Employers try to put in nonsense such as non-compete clauses by they are always toothless.
This is a little different than a noncompete though. Those are hardly enforceable in the US either.
You mean to tell me in your country there is nothing to prevent you from quitting your job and then next day writing up and publishing full detail reports about internal operations?
You mean to tell me in your country there is nothing to prevent you from quitting your job and then next day writing up and publishing full detail reports about internal operations?
meta being so big they're almost part of public institution just privately held; and public scrutiny is less frowned upon especially if many believes they do not contribute to the betterment of the republic
zug_zug(6)
SanjayMehta(5)
> Normally such content would be taken down after sufficient number of reports were received.
I can't be the only one who sees a problem with this. No content should ever be taken down automatically just because a bunch of random people report it.
I can't be the only one who sees a problem with this. No content should ever be taken down automatically just because a bunch of random people report it.
What is your suggested solution?
Your options are:
1. Leave up child porn, revenge porn, hate speech, gore, fake and misleading stuff, etc for a long time, possibly forever, since a machine can no longer automatically take down mass-reported content
OR
2. Hire so many human moderators that facebook goes bankrupt
OR
3. Use untrained and unpaid/underpaid human moderators, such as strangers (the reddit model); go back to square 1 where volunteer moderators take down stuff they don't like with minimal oversight
OR
4. Have so few users that a small number of human moderators can actually review every report, i.e. the hacker news model. Or actually, no, hacker news "dead"s posts based on just number of reports without a human seeing it, I take that back. I guess this is the approach forums, most smaller blog comments, and other quite small websites use.
Do you have another solution that isn't one of those? Do any of those solutions sound good for facebook? Better than what they have now?
Your options are:
1. Leave up child porn, revenge porn, hate speech, gore, fake and misleading stuff, etc for a long time, possibly forever, since a machine can no longer automatically take down mass-reported content
OR
2. Hire so many human moderators that facebook goes bankrupt
OR
3. Use untrained and unpaid/underpaid human moderators, such as strangers (the reddit model); go back to square 1 where volunteer moderators take down stuff they don't like with minimal oversight
OR
4. Have so few users that a small number of human moderators can actually review every report, i.e. the hacker news model. Or actually, no, hacker news "dead"s posts based on just number of reports without a human seeing it, I take that back. I guess this is the approach forums, most smaller blog comments, and other quite small websites use.
Do you have another solution that isn't one of those? Do any of those solutions sound good for facebook? Better than what they have now?
Here's a possible system: replace "random people" with "people with a solid track record of previous correct reports". When something gets reported, human moderators categorize it as either "correctly reported, and should be taken down", "incorrectly reported, but possibly a misunderstanding or a borderline case", or "a clearly bad-faith report against content that no reasonable person would actually believe breaks the rules". Keep track of how many reports from each user end up in each category.
If almost all of your reports are in the first category, then you're considered trusted, and if enough trusted users report a post, then it can be automatically removed before a human moderator sees it. If you haven't reported anything before, or too many of your reports are in the second category, then your report only helps to get the submission in front of a human moderator and doesn't directly contribute to it being removed. If more than a handful of your reports ever end up in the third category, you get banned for abusing the report system.
If almost all of your reports are in the first category, then you're considered trusted, and if enough trusted users report a post, then it can be automatically removed before a human moderator sees it. If you haven't reported anything before, or too many of your reports are in the second category, then your report only helps to get the submission in front of a human moderator and doesn't directly contribute to it being removed. If more than a handful of your reports ever end up in the third category, you get banned for abusing the report system.
Is that not already the case? Do you think facebook doesn't already weight reports by the historical quality of the reporter?
That still seems like a violation of "No content should ever be taken down automatically just because a bunch of random people report it", as you wrote above.
That still seems like a violation of "No content should ever be taken down automatically just because a bunch of random people report it", as you wrote above.
> No content should ever be taken down automatically just because a bunch of random people report it.
Serious question, why not?
Serious question, why not?
Because you have no idea if those reports are at all genuine, or if the reporters met up elsewhere (online or off) in order to brigade and mass-report said content, with the intention of getting it taken down despite breaking no rules. Sometimes, the coordination isn't even necessary, it just needs to be the right target posting something online. (Eg more than a few people have gone and reported every post by a politician you like/dislike for hate speech and inciting violence.)
The article well explains this downside of user reports, so I don't see what this comment adds. It does not answer my question. The article also describes problems of not acting on them, so the conclusion requires more than just finding a negative.
I'm sorry you're unable to understand my answer. Let me try saying the same thing as the article another time, and maybe you'll be able to understand the answer?
Your question was Why should no content should ever be taken down automatically just because a bunch of random people report it.
It's because the random people reporting it can't be trusted to be acting honestly. Without a human in the loop, the automated system becomes a tool for cyberbullies, and harms the very users you intend to protect. The foregone conclusion, thus, is that a fully-automated system will do more harm for the user-base than good.
Your question was Why should no content should ever be taken down automatically just because a bunch of random people report it.
It's because the random people reporting it can't be trusted to be acting honestly. Without a human in the loop, the automated system becomes a tool for cyberbullies, and harms the very users you intend to protect. The foregone conclusion, thus, is that a fully-automated system will do more harm for the user-base than good.
I understood the answer, it just didn't address the question properly. I think you failed to understand the problem with the answer.
> The foregone conclusion, thus, is that a fully-automated system will do more harm for the user-base than good.
This is not an answer, it is just lazy circular reasoning. "Automated take downs should not be used because they do more harm than good." Yes we have already established that is your assertion, I am asking for how you were able to conclude that.
> The foregone conclusion, thus, is that a fully-automated system will do more harm for the user-base than good.
This is not an answer, it is just lazy circular reasoning. "Automated take downs should not be used because they do more harm than good." Yes we have already established that is your assertion, I am asking for how you were able to conclude that.
That’s why politicians tend to get X-Check.
Because coordinated false reports aren't uncommon.
I wasn't asking about possible downsides, of course there are pros and cons. I'm wondering how you came to conclude that taking down the content is the wrong strategy for facebook (or in general).