Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Facebook Businesses

Facebook's Content Moderation Efforts Are 'Grossly Inadequate' (venturebeat.com) 39

Posted by msmash from the closer-look dept.
In a scathing indictment of Facebook's content moderation strategy, a new study identifies the company's decision to outsource such work as a key reason its efforts are failing. From a report: The NYU Stern Center for Business and Human Rights released a report today that calls on Facebook to end the outsourcing practice and commit to bringing the work in-house so moderation receives the resources and attention it deserves. The report also calls for a massive increase in the number of moderators, as well as improved working conditions that include better physical and mental health care for moderators who are subjected to disturbing content throughout the workday.

The report comes as Facebook's reputation continues to degrade following years of controversy over its handling of disinformation, fake news, and other dangerous content on its platform. Such criticism has intensified in recent days, with CEO Mark Zuckerberg facing a backlash from employees over his failure to censure tweets by President Trump that appear to violate the platform's policies against inciting violence. While the problems facing Facebook's content moderation have been widely reported, the study's principal author, Paul Barrett, said he wanted to highlight the fact that while content moderation is fundamental to keeping the platform usable, the company has relegated the work to a secondary role by primarily employing underpaid contractors in remote locations.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Facebook's Content Moderation Efforts Are 'Grossly Inadequate' More

Facebook's Content Moderation Efforts Are 'Grossly Inadequate'

Comments Filter:

  • Church Lady says (Score:3)

    by Kohath ( 38547 ) on Monday June 08, 2020 @12:19PM (#60159860)

    You must rebuke Satan clearly! Do it now before we cast you out!

  • Apologies (Score:3)

    by tsa ( 15680 ) on Monday June 08, 2020 @12:31PM (#60159908) Homepage

    This is what will happen: Suckerberg will apologize, the judge says: "Don't do it again, you naughty bugger!" and everything stays the same. It's a sort of Groundhog Day.

  • Inadequate for whom? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by eepok ( 545733 ) on Monday June 08, 2020 @12:39PM (#60159946) Homepage

    Facebook wants:
    - To maximize users
    - To maximize participation
    - To minimize liability
    - To pay as few people as possible
    - To pay people as little as possible

    Facebook knows:
    - People aren't going to stop using Facebook
    - American law still hasn't sorted out how social media fits within law. Platform? Media Company? Common Carrier or Private Users?

    So of course they haven't hired the 500,000 college-educated, multi-lingual legal and social experts required to make a dent in inappropriate Facebook posts. It would cost too much to pay for them, their benefits, and the therapy required for them to deal with the crap they will see.

    Don't act surprised when a company doesn't spend a TON of money to do something that is not required by explicit regulation. Be surprised when they DO.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by BoB235423424 ( 6928344 )
      Or they also know that what people are complaining about is based on perception and not reality. That by deleting what the mob is claiming to violate their terms will actually lose them half their users. For instance, claims that Trump is inciting violence is all based on perception bias and and echo chamber reporting saying he did. He simply stated that rioting/looting leads to the same people doing the rioting and looting to escalating to more violent acts. No where did he threaten to shoot those peop

      • Trump's quip about "When the looting starts, the shooting starts" was part of a tweet where Trump promised military support to Governor Tim Walz. For the historical context, see
        https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/where-does-phrase-when-looting-starts-shooting-starts-come-n1217676 [nbcnews.com]
        Overall, it seems pretty clear that it was meant as a threat to looters. No need for echo chambers here, just reading the text of the tweet and a bit of research.

        This said, I share your concern that censorship will ultimately

        • There is no need to remove the content. Do like Twitter did and do what Facebook already does with content they moderate. You allow the message to be read and you provide context or facts or both! I think we all agree suppression of speech isn't a good idea even when we don't like the speech. When it is an outright lie I think its okay to provide additional facts.

          There was recently an urksome post saying "antifa" defaced and damaged the Lincoln monument in DC. This was of course a boldfaced lie. Now that w

  • Suggest Trump have the Air National Guard drop a few mk-84s on Facebook's server farm. Extra points if they get the Zuck in the process. It would be like nailing Osama bin Laden.

  • Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Monday June 08, 2020 @12:42PM (#60159960)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • Can't argue with that one.

      • If twitter would cease operations society would be better off.

        • If twitter would cease operations society would be better off.

          Facebook and YouTube are much greater threats to "society" than Twitter.

          Twitter just sends you a chronological list of whomever you follow, with ads inserted into the feed, along with a mechanism to confusingly interact with (and debate) people. Furthermore only about 20% of American adults use Twitter, compared to nearly 75% on Facebook and YouTube.

          Facebook and YouTube, on the other hand, curate your feed showing you more and more thin

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Facebook is a forum, where your posts are used for (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Veretax ( 872660 ) on Monday June 08, 2020 @12:47PM (#60159974)
    Facebook is basically a forum that can be used to push adds and such. It's clear that few in this country understand the difference between fact and opinion. (And their cousins, fake news, and satire)

  • Social media will just hide behind crypto. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Britz ( 170620 ) on Monday June 08, 2020 @12:52PM (#60160002)

    It's only a question when, not if, social media will encrypt the content. WhatsApp is already encrypted and with WhatsApp groups and message forwarding (sharing) it already is a sort of social media. You can't moderate what is encrypted.

    It's rather simple. As you can see in this video:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

    In the attention economy of the age of the smartphone, the longer the user stays in the app, the more the app gets paid. How do you get users to stay? There are some technical details, but a big part of the equation is content. The right kind of content will overcome the firewalls of the brain and attach itself directly to the emotional docking ports. What works best? Anger! Anger overcomes all natural brain barriers. And social media is the best way to find out which brain bug (piece of outrage porn) is best at it. It will get shared the most.

    Why are you angry? Because social and traditional media have been tapping into this resource for their entire existence. Some more, some less.

    When Facebook turns down the outrage porn (Youtube already has), they lose. At some point, they will be forced to. And the attention will move to encrypted platforms.

  • The study is from "The NYU Stern Center for Business and Human Rights".

    "Human Rights". About Facebook moderation. Not a war zone, or working conditions, or slavery, or persecution. This is all about clutching pearls because some assholes in New York are upset about what people write on their Facebook posts. And they want to shut it down.

    At what point do we start telling these people, openly, "Because F#&% You, THAT'S why"?

  • Facebook (Score:5, Insightful)

    by beep54 ( 1844432 ) <b54oramaster&gmail,com> on Monday June 08, 2020 @01:09PM (#60160072)
    The only way to deal with FB is to delete it. You really dont't need it. It is a toxic cesspool of vileness. And be careful. FB owns things like Instagram. Remember, we've already got one soulless monster running things.
    • I'm tempted to agree but the demand for communication (while being too lazy to actually go out and meet people) is too high. If there's a demand people will find a way to fulfill it. Delete Facebook and a new one will pop up. It would be like trying to remove drugs from society, an exercise in futility

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Ksevio ( 865461 )

      Ouch, maybe you should get better friends in that case

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Shag ( 3737 )

      Yep, FB owns Instagram, Onavo (web analytics thing), WhatsApp, Oculus VR, and as of last month, Giphy. The tentacles, the tentacles!

  • Interesting study [nyu.edu] they've got there. Has it been fact checked yet?

  • I shared a meme that made fun of the 5G-phobes that said "When the 5G towers give you COVID-19 and you start emitting your own wifi" with cartoons of people with wifi logos emitting from their mouths. It got removed about a month after I posted it for violating the spreading false information about covid-19.

  • Article summarized:

    Clucking gaggle of Ivy League Karens demands that Faceboot hire more and better censors to stifle freedom of speech.

  • Lobbying firms. Why do I care?

Slashdot Top Deals

I've noticed several design suggestions in your code.

Close