2 Matching Annotations
  1. Sep 2020
    1. What were the “right things” to serve the community, as Zuckerberg put it, when the community had grown to more than 3 billion people?

      This is just one of the contradictions of having a global medium/platform of communication being controlled by a single operator.

      It is extremely difficult to create global policies to moderate the conversations of 3 billion people across different languages and cultures. No team, no document, is qualified for such a task, because so much is dependent on context.

      The approach to moderation taken by federated social media like Mastodon makes a lot more sense. Communities moderate themselves, based on their own codes of conduct. In smaller servers, a strict code of conduct may not even be necessary - moderation decisions can be based on a combination of consensus and common sense (just like in real life social groups and social interactions). And there is no question of censorship, since their moderation actions don't apply to the whole network.

  2. Oct 2018
    1. "I am really pleased to see different sites deciding not to privilege aggressors' speech over their targets'," Phillips said. "That tends to be the default position in so many online 'free speech' debates which suggest that if you restrict aggressors' speech, you're doing a disservice to America—a position that doesn't take into account the fact that antagonistic speech infringes on the speech of those who are silenced by that kind of abuse."