[ad_1]
As companies develop more and more types of technology to find and remove content in different ways, there is hope that they should use it. Can’t involves moderate should moderate. After all, once you use a tool, it’s hard to get it back into the box. But the moderation of the content is flooded with snow, and the damage in its path is too often overlooked.
There is a chance now to study carefully the way forward. Trump’s social media accounts and elections are in the rearview mirror, which means content moderation is no longer an A1 story. Perhaps this proves that the source of the great anxieties was politics, not platforms. But there is – or should be – some permanent unrest a tremendous display of power some of the company’s executives showed upside down to turn off the accounts of the free world leader.
The chaos of 2020 destroyed any idea of the clear category of harmful “misinformation” that some powerful people in Silicon Valley must carry, or even the way to separate health from politics. Last week, for example, Facebook he reversed his policy and has said that it will no longer charge Covid-19 if it is man-made or manufactured. Only a few months ago The New York Times he mentioned the belief that “baseless”Theory as evidence that social media has contributed to the ongoing“ reality crisis ”. It was similar back and forth masks. At the beginning of the pandemic, Facebook prohibited ads for them on the site. This lasted until June, WHO finally has changed orientation recommend wearing masks, although advised by many experts much earlier. I think that’s good news they were not so effective when the ban goes into effect. (At the time, however, there was no good news to see).
When authorities learn more about what went wrong in the pandemic or policies, and not in specializations, in specific narratives, there will be greater skepticism in trusting them or deciding when to close the conversation on private platforms. Providing guidelines on public health at any given time is not a claim to reasonable limits on the debate.
The call for further study also has geopolitical costs. Authoritarian and repressive governments around the world have expressed the rhetoric of liberal democracies to justify their censorship. That, of course, is an accurate comparison. Close criticism of the government’s management of public health emergencies, As the Indian government is doing, is as clear as it is about freedom of expression. But there yes some tension to lower the platform when it screams further here but stop falling so much han. So far, Western governments have refused to address this. To a large extent, they have left platforms to defend themselves in the global rise of digital authoritarianism. And the platforms are losing ground. Governments need to chew and chew gum on how to talk about platform regulation and freedom of expression if they want to stand up for the rights of many users outside their borders.
There are other compensations. Because the size of the content will be scaled never be perfect, the question is always on which side of the line to bend when complying with the rules. Enforcing stricter rules and greater force necessarily means more false positives: that is, more valuable language will be removed. This problem is exacerbated by the growing reliance on automated content to scale content: harsh and stupid. If you tell them to remove more content, the algorithms won’t think twice. They cannot assess the context or say the difference between content that glorifies violence or recording evidence of human rights violations, e.g. This kind of approach has become clear in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict in recent weeks, as has Facebook. remove it again and again key content from the Palestinians and about. This is not the only one. Maybe he should no it must always be said, especially since we know that these errors tend to fall disproportionate already activated discarded and vulnerable communities.
[ad_2]
Source link
