Hacker News Reader

Comment by micimize | Hacker News Reader

A. A human _was_ involved and B. His issue was resolved within 24 hours: https://twitter.com/imranzomg/status/1549914737781063680

Like, come on. I agree that the processes and moderation models could be better, especially at the appeals phase, but we don't see the other side of the battle twitter content moderation is fighting.

Even if their doing a stellar job statistics-wise, we probably wouldn't know because PR wouldn't want a blog post about how a twitter hovers on the brink of becoming a cesspool.

I'm less sympathetic when inhumane moderation policies ruin lives as we see a lot of with google properties (YT, gmail), but this instance is pretty far from such a case.

View on HN

"We don't see the other side" is perhaps literally the biggest problem.

I will have sympathy for this process when they choose to tell us how it all works, clearly and plainly. Otherwise, let the metaphorical rock-throwing continue.

What are you arguing here? That twitter is good at moderation because we simply can't see it behind the scenes?

I can think of hundred different ways this could have affected someone negatively, especially if they weren't able to speak with support in native language.

So c'mon, there is no excuse for this ban to take place, and then continue to be banned after the first appeal, statistics or not.

My primary points are that 24h turn around to get the issue resolved is not bad, and that blaming the AI is silly when the human in the loop didn't fix anything.

But yes, I am also saying we don't know the reality of what the content moderation team is dealing with, we basically only see the false positives. I'm not saying they're doing a good job (especially the team handling appeals), I'm saying that we should be more sympathetic to the trade-offs involved in automated moderation.

So, if you don't know the reality, why pretend or even give a shadow of a doubt of good faith? You've lost me man. They can do more to be transparent, but they don't. This is not a technological blocker, its a deliberate decision. Don't act like they can't show the reality of moderation, they simply choose not to. We already established in this scenario they chose to do nothing after manual review by a human. What more evidence of failure do you need. It's not working, period.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com