Empowering users or just handing them the keys to their own echo chambers? Innovative but fraught with potential downsides.
๐ฑ๐ฑ๐ฑ
this post was submitted on 02 Mar 2025
164 points (86.3% liked)
Technology
66975 readers
4303 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
"that way we can profit from normies and Nazis!"
I disagree, but I think he's close. The future of moderation should be customizable by users, but it needs to be based on human moderation. Let them pick their own moderators, and fine tune that moderation to their liking, and give them an option to review moderation and make adjustments.
Yeah, let's also give AI moderation rights over nuclear weapons, that has never gone wrong.
Yeah but my madlibs generator might get confused without a /s
At least 'AI' has thick skin?
Oh yeah, lets do that and see that everything going into chaos.
Pinterest lets their AI do checks on pins and totally (non violated ToS) images get deleted. Accounts getting permanent banned because their AI claims images are violating their ToS (I guess plants and houses are violent).
What could go wrong, nothing eh? /sarcasm.
Hilarious is you don't think about it.
I think that he's probably correct that this is, in significant part, going to be the future.
I don't think that human moderation is going to entirely vanish, but it's not cheap to pay a ton of humans to do what it would take. A lot of moderation is, well...fairly mechanical. Like, it's probably possible to detect, with reasonable accuracy, that you've got a flamewar on your hands, stuff like that. You'd want to do as much as you can in software.
Human moderators sleep, leave the keyboard, do things like that. Software doesn't.
Also, if you have cheap-enough text classification, you can do it on a per-user basis, so that instead of a global view of the world, different people see different content being filtered and recommended, which I think is what he's proposing:
Ohanian said at the conference that he thinks social media will "eventually get to a place where we get to choose our own algorithm."
Most social media relies on at least some level of recommendations.
This isn't even new for him. The original vision for Reddit, as I recall, was that the voting was going to be used to build a per-user profile to feed a recommendations engine. That never really happened. Instead, one wound up with subreddits (so self-selecting communities are part of it) and a global voting on stuff within that.
I mean, text classifiers aimed at filtering out spam have been around forever for email. It's not even terribly new technology. Some subreddits on Reddit had bots run by moderators that did do some level of automated moderation.