Kamala, Coconuts & The Impossibility Of Content Moderation At Scale
from the moderators-exist-in-the-context dept
I’ve spent many years trying to explain to people the impossibility of doing content moderation well at scale. I’ve created dozens of case studies on impossible decisions. I’ve made two separate video games about content moderation and trust & safety. I’ve written so so so many articles.
But I think I’ve now found just a perfect example, courtesy of a guy named Pete on Bluesky. And it’s about the use of the word “coconut.”
In the past couple of weeks, you might have heard about the association of Kamala Harris and coconuts. In short, in 2023, during some remarks at the White House, she said the following:
My mother used to — she would give us a hard time sometimes, and she would say to us, “I don’t know what’s wrong with you young people. You think you just fell out of a coconut tree?” (Laughs.)
You exist in the context of all in which you live and what came before you.
Some MAGA folks originally tried to take this clip and use it to make fun of Harris (one account claimed she was “obviously drunk” and dunking on her). Indeed, that video clip above is from the “GOP War Room” and was posted to mock Harris.
But something about the audio version of it resonated with people on TikTok. This included the mocking tone of Harris imitating her mother, followed by the laugh, and then the following “deep” sentence stated in a very serious tone. Many videos with Harris’ audio were made by people on TikTok. They often juxtaposed the pre-laugh mockery and the post-laugh seriousness, generally in support of the larger point that Harris was making. This point, ironically, the MAGA folks ignored regarding the importance of context.
Know Your Meme (as per usual) has the best summary of how it evolved from an attempted dunk on Harris to support for Harris. And, since Harris became the presumptive Democratic Presidential nominee, supporters have embraced the coconut (or the coconut tree) as a symbol of the campaign.
The media has tried repeatedly (and often poorly) to explain all this.

However, Harris supporters are all in on “coconuts” as a symbol of the campaign.
But, as that skeet from Pete notes above, historically, “coconut” has been used in a much more derogatory fashion towards people of Indian descent who some feel are too assimilated into western culture. And, indeed, just a couple of months ago, a woman in the UK was charged with a “hate crime” for referring to two UK politicians, then Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and then Home Secretary Suella Braverman, as “coconuts” on a sign at a protest.
And all of this gets to some of the difficulties not just in content moderation, but in trying to regulate “hate speech” as well.
Because, as always, context matters with a lot of this stuff. Or, I guess, as Harris says, “you exist in the context of all in which you live and what came before you.” And sometimes, a simple short phrase or a protest sign fails to take into account all of that context.
But, also, content moderation policies and “hate speech” laws may also fail to take into account that kind of context, or have any clear way of dealing with it. Indeed, it’s somewhat fascinating how the Harris quote was originally used (not necessarily in a bigoted fashion) to mock and attack Harris, yet was then embraced and adopted by her fans instead.
Context matters a lot. And context may change based on perspectives or who is speaking or why they’re speaking. Should anyone judging either of these situations have to know all of this history and context? For example, should content moderators be responsible for spending the necessary time to get up to speed with the history and context here? How would that possibly be scalable?
And all of that makes it a great example of how what many people always assume is straightforward (“just ban the hate speech”) always proves way more difficult in actual practice. Generally speaking, this is why enabling more free speech (including speech that condemns others for hateful speech) is so important, rather than demanding that it all be “policed” fully.
It’s totally reasonable to be concerned with how the word “coconut” is used in some contexts as a derogatory slur, but we should be careful about how we decide to respond to and handle that, there is… context in all of this.
Filed Under: coconuts, content moderation, context, hate speech, kamala harris, masnick's impossibility theorem, memes


Comments on “Kamala, Coconuts & The Impossibility Of Content Moderation At Scale”
Falling out of a coconut tree
Anyone else ever encounter the alphabet book, “Chicka Chicka Boom Boom?” A coconut tree figures prominently.
“A told B, and B told C,
I’ll race you to the top of the coconut tree!”
My (Millennial) daughter loved this one as a toddler. I wonder if Harris could work it into her campaign somehow.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
The United Kingdom is a shit hole and I feel bad for anyone who is stuck there and forced to contend with a tyrannical regime.
Also I am in full support of nationalizing all American news corporations and shutting them down, then forcing all MSM journalists to build missiles for Israel. Anyone else agree? I think this sentiment is pretty common.
Re:
Your doing a “Bit”, right?
Every Nation eats the Paint chips it deserves!
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
I have never joked around. All of my posts are the 100% serious business that Techdirtists deserve.
Re: Re: Re:
You’re like the Forrest Gump of inbred incels bruv.
Re: Re: Re:2
Ok, now try coming up with your own insult that you didn’t steal from years of uninterrupted leftist reddit/twitter exposure.
Also, in the movie, Forrest Gump is a war hero who manages to succeed in life despite his disability. Try consuming the media you reference next time and you might actually land something.
Re: Re: Re:
And you immediately lose any sense of seriousness by referring us as “techdirtists.”
Re: Re: Re:2
What else am I supposed to say? Techdirtians?
Re: Re: Re:
Fuck off, weirdo.
Re: Re: Re:2
Oooooh, weirdo in italics. You wanna know how I know who you are? Because you’re the only Anonymous Coward who’s consistently being this aggressive. Log in, pussy.
Re: Re: Re:3
No.
Re:
Is there ever a time that what you’ve said isn’t the dumbest shit imaginable?
Re:
I mean sure, that’s essentially what PM Konoe did to Japan before ww2. re:Kamikazi. I see no good reason for anyone to pretend to not take such bullshit seriously.
“You exist in the context of all in which you live and what came before you.”
I like the above quote, it is sort of a parallel to the saying:
“We stand upon the shoulders of giants”
Thank you for educating us about coconuts
This reminds me a bit about the ‘Slants’ trademark case that made it to the Supreme Court a while back. Context shifts all the time, and people should be able to try to reclaim (or rehabilitate) slurs the same way that usage can turn ordinary words into slurs. (Anybody else remember a time when it was OK to call people ‘colored’?)
Re:
It is again, actually. the phrase ‘people of color’ is just a different way of saying ‘colored’, which is why I state specific ethnicity (when necessary) instead.
Re: Re:
we are all one color or another
I get why you put hate speech in scare quotes. Why did you put the words hate crime in scare quotes, though?
Re:
Because being a rude asshole isn’t a crime. Even if some governments criminalize it.
Re: Re:
Well, not unless it’s directed at the right people, then we will die on a hill to make sure it never happens again.
Re: Re:
Hate crimes aren’t “being a rude asshole”, they are ordinary crimes like murder, assault and so on. They are designated as hate crimes when they are motivated by hate.
Re: Re: Re:
Did you click on the article from The Independent that is linked there? The article uses the term “Hate Crime” in its title, and the crime (described elsewhere in the article as a “racially aggravated public order offence”) is that the protestor held a sign depicting them as coconuts. There isn’t even an allegation that she committed murder or assault.
Re: Re: Re:
“They are designated as hate crimes when they are motivated by hate.”
More accurately, they are designated as hate crimes when they are motivated by what government bureaucrats define as ‘hate’, whether or not it actually is hate.
The only context I need is something being from MAGA mooks, which means it’s automatically stupid and worthless.
I’ve already heard in a country the expression (maybe not well translated) “wanking the coconut tree”, that meant being useless as a person.
I don’t know if it would be an offense in another country (or sending the wrong signal) but I wouldn’t be amazed if it is.
'I think it's bad, therefore it must be bad, simple as that.'
Setting aside the ever shifting minefield that is ‘context’ for a moment ‘Moderation is easy, just get rid of the Bad Stuff’ is only a reasonable argument to someone who has either never spent any time thinking about what they just said, or completely ignoring the fact that other people exist and they might have different ideas as to what does and does not count as ‘Bad Stuff’.
Please stop calling them that. Please. I’m begging you. Before it catches on.
Re:
Too late.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
’ve spent many years trying to explain to people the impossibility of doing content moderation well at scale. I’ve created dozens of case studies on impossible decisions. I’ve made two separate video games about content moderation and trust & safety. I’ve written so so so many articles.
Words for people who assimilate too well...
I got to thinking about the similarity of the coconut metaphor in UK to to other words for people trying to assimilate, collaborators, sleeping with the enemy, fifth columnists and people who put country ahead of party.
The one thing they all have in common? They try to perpetuate conflict. “You’re a bad person because you are in my group but you behave like you’re in that group that I hate.” In some ways, these are among the most dangerous insults because they create peer pressure to continue conflict, and possibly violence, when others want to “give peace a chance”.
Reminds me of what I’ve called the Jain Swastika Problem. I imagine most of us think “Neo-Nazi” when we see a swastika. However, there are also religions–such as Jainism–that use the swastika as a symbol. If the moderation team bans swastikas due to their frequent use by Neo-Nazis, then people who sincerely use the swastika as a religious symbol, through no fault of their own, have their ability to express themselves constrained. If an exception is carved out for religious use, Neo-Nazis will inevitably try to take advantage of that exception, using the swastika for political reasons while pretending it’s religious. Even if the moderation team sees right through the Neo-Nazis’ ruse, the opening–or rather the Neo-Nazis’ exploitation of said opening–creates a source of discomfort for other users.
Re:
Which is where moderation and Section 230 come in.
Yeah, it’s still two countries separated by a common language.
It seems pretty clear to me – the Harris memes were supportive based on something she actually said and not necessarily racially based (unusual for some parts of the US but hey). Whereas the other attacks in the UK were more about the “white inside, brown outside” attacks which are usually explicitly racial and aimed at people who came from the Commonwealth but need to be told they don’t belong in either, similar to how “Oreo” and other words are used in the US.
Such is the problem with trying to create a global platform – even the same words can be very different depending on where you are, and because of that the fix for the moderation problem is not to just replace the automation with people.
“But, as that skeet from Pete notes above…”
It’s hilarious that the lefties over at BlueSky have decided to name their posts “skeets”.
“Skeet” is urban slang for male ejaculate.
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=skeet%21
On the other hand, maybe it’s the most appropriate name for their posts they could possibly have come up with.