Internet Content Moderation Isn't Politically Biased, It's Just Impossible To Do Well At Scale

from the stop-this-dumb-narrative dept

The narrative making the political rounds recently is that the big social media platforms are somehow "biased against conservatives" and deliberately trying to silence them (meanwhile, there are some in the liberal camp who are complaining that sites like Twitter have not killed off certain accounts, arguing -- incorrectly -- that they're now overcompensating in trying to not kick off angry ideologues). This has been a stupid narrative from the beginning, but the refrain on it has only been getting louder and louder, especially as Donald Trump has gone off on one of his ill-informed rants claming that "Social Media Giants are silencing millions of people." Let's be clear: this is all nonsense.

The real issue -- as we've been trying to explain for quite some time now -- is that basic content moderation at scale is nearly impossible to do well. That doesn't mean sites can't do better, but the failures are not because of some institutional bias. Will Oremus, over at Slate, has a good article up detailing why this narrative is nonsense, and he points to the episode of Radiolab we recently wrote about, that digs deep on how Facebook moderation choices happen, where you quickly begin to get a sense of why it's impossible to do it well. I would add to that a recent piece from Motherboard, accurately titled The Impossible Job: Inside Facebook’s Struggle to Moderate Two Billion People.

These all highlight a few simple facts that lots of angry people (on all sides of political debates) are having trouble grasping.

  1. If you leave a platform completely unmoderated, it will fill up with junk, spam, trolling and the like, thereby decreasing its overall utility and pushing people away.
  2. If you do decide to moderate, you have a set of impossible choices. So much content requires understanding context, and context may be very different, even for the same content when viewed by different people.
  3. If you're going to moderate at scale, you're going to need a set of "rules" that thousands of generally low paid individuals will have to be able to put into practice, reviewing pieces of content for just a few seconds (a recent report said that Facebook reviewers were expect to review 5,000 pieces of content per day.
  4. It is impossible to make rules like that that can easily be applied to all content. A significant percentage of content falls into gray areas, where it then becomes a judgment call by people in a cubicle in the middle of reviewing 5,000 pieces of content.
  5. At that rate, many mistakes are made. It is collateral damage of moderation at scale.
  6. People caught in the crossfire of collateral damage will rightly make a big stink about it and the social media companies will look bad.
  7. Meanwhile, some of the reasonable moderation decisions will hit trolls hard (see point 1 above) and those trolls will then take to other platforms and make a huge stink about how unfair it all is, and the social media companies will look bad.
Put this all together and it is a no win situation. You can't leave the platform completely unmoderated. But any attempt at moderation at scale is going to have problems. The "scale" part of this is what's the most difficult for most people to grasp. As Kate Klonick (again, author of an incredible paper on content moderation that you should read as well as author of a guest post here on Techdirt) notes in the Motherboard piece:

“This is the difference between having 100 million people and a few billion people on your platform,” Kate Klonick... told Motherboard. “If you moderate posts 40 million times a day, the chance of one of those wrong decisions blowing up in your face is so much higher.”

Later in the piece, Klonick again makes an important point:

“The really easy answer is outrage, and that reaction is so useless,” Klonick said. “The other easy thing is to create an evil corporate narrative, and that is also not right. I’m not letting them off the hook, but these are mind-bending problems and I think sometimes they don’t get enough credit for how hard these problems are.”

This is why I've been advocating loudly for platforms to move the moderation decisions further out to the ends of the network, rather than doing it in a centralized fashion. Let end users create their own moderation system, or adapt ones put together by third parties. But, of course, even that has problems as well.

No matter what choices are made, there are significant tradeoffs. As the Motherboard article also highlights, what seems like a "simple" rule gets hellishly complex quickly when applied to other situations, and then you've suddenly increased the "error" rate and people get angry all over again and the whole mess gets blown out of proportion again.

“There's always a balance between: do we add this exception, this nuance, this regional trade-off, and maybe incur lower accuracy and more errors,” Guy Rosen, VP of product management at Facebook, said. "[Or] do we keep it simple, but maybe not quite as nuanced in some of the edge cases? Balance that's really hard to strike at the end of the day.”

As the Oremus piece notes, the "bias" of platforms when it comes to moderation is not "liberal" or "conservative," it's Capitalist. Having a platform overrun with spam and trolls is bad for business. Hiring enough people who can adequately review content within the correct context is somewhere between insanely cost prohibitive and impossible. So the platforms muddle by with imperfect review processes. Making moderation mistakes is also bad for business, and the platforms would love to minimize them, but "mistakes" are often in the eye of the beholder as well, again reinforcing that this is an impossible task. For everyone screaming about how Alex Jones should be kicked off platforms, there's a similar number of people screaming about how awful the platforms are that do kick him off. There is no "right" way to do this, and that's what every platform struggles with.

And, if you think that these platforms are unfairly silencing "conservatives" (which is the prevailing narrative right now), it's probably because you're not paying enough attention elsewhere. Black Lives Matter and other civil rights groups have complained about "racially biased" moderation in the opposite direction, saying that minority groups are regularly silenced on these platforms. Indeed, it's not hard to find a ton of reports about black activists having content removed from social media platforms. And for all the talk of Infowars being taken off these platforms, how many people noticed that the Facebook page of the Venezuelan socialist TV station Telesur was recently taken down as well.

Yes, it's fine to point out that these platforms (mainly Facebook, Twitter and YouTube) are really bad at moderating. But, unless you're willing to actually understand the scale at play, recognize how many mistakes are going to be made (and recognize how trolls are going to go nuts over correct decisions), you're playing into a false narrative to argue that any of these platforms are "targeting" anyone. It's not true.

Filed Under: bias, content moderation, errors, filters, mistakes, scale, social media, spam, trolls
Companies: facebook, google, twitter, youtube

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

  1. icon
    cattress (profile), 28 Aug 2018 @ 10:29pm

    Re: Re: Re: It will all work out

    A living wage is an incredibly relative number. There's no way to come up with a fair and appropriate rate that fits every person, and quite frankly, I think it's a horrible idea to have to disclose all of the personal information to anyone else, government or private business, to come up with such a number. I also think laws used to calculate such a rate would end up giving power to an employer or government to say that no you can't have another child, no you can't move out to your own place away from your spouse or roommate because they cannot afford to pay you the adjusted living wage. (Don't think so, see China's one child rule!)

    Did you know that the minimum wage was introduced as a way to prevent women, young people, people of color, the disabled, from getting jobs? The less desirable people would take jobs for less pay than the white able-bodied adult males (with the proverbial family to take care of), which allowed these people the opportunity to earn something instead of nothing, to get their foot in the door and demonstrate their value or learn a new skill, eventually earning higher wages and having some sense of control over their own lives and destiny. But patriarchs didn't want women working and gaining financial independence. Progressives (yes progressives, which Hitler was impressed by, look it up!) wanted to cleanse these less desirable, which was easiest to do if they didn't have financial independence.So a wage floor was enacted, so that businesses would hire the worker with the lowest risk of failing to meet the return of investment. If you don't think this applies today, because today's progressives have good intentions, consider: Would you pay an inexperienced 15 yr old $15/hour, and train them, only have them available to fill partial shifts because of labor laws, when you have a bunch of candidates without restrictions and some experience? How about if you could pay them $8 or 9$ an hour, does it seem worth training them over an experienced worker you can't afford to pay that much more, and thus is more likely to leave to moment a better opportunity comes up? Shouldn't you the employer be the one to decide? Shouldn't the 15 year old have the choice to take a job for $8 and gain some experience if they want? Now under which situation are people more readily able to decide for themselves what is in their best interest?
    Welfare was created to prevent financial independence and control certain people, particularly those the white patriarch felt lacked the morality and intelligence adequately care for themselves. (hmmmm, see my post above about how my baby was tested for drugs when she was born because I am on Medicaid, or how SNAP and TANF benefits have strict spending rules, or how someone has to certify the apartment you want to rent because you couldn't determine for yourself if it meets your needs in order to get housing voucher.)

    I don't think we should abolish welfare- I'm on Medicaid- but we could knock down a lot of barriers to self-sufficiency (employment licensing, and rules against home based businesses) and that raise costs of living (like zoning laws that prevent enough housing to be built because a bunch of NIMBY don't want apartment buildings that don't match look of the rest of buildings, or might cast a shadow on an already shady playground, or tiny houses because they are too tiny, or trailers because they are trailers and a group is a trailer park) and unnecessary regulations on childcare that require expensive education which the cost is passed onto parents. We need medical/mental health providers which means shaking the AMA's hold that artificially limits how many doctors get educated trained and licensed (which should end wage stagnation that directly correlates with AMA limits put in place when MEdicaid and Medicare were enacted to keep doctor pay high, as employer health insurance costs have eaten up wages) end policing for profit/debtors prisons, and the war on drugs that rips young black males from their families and destabilizes their communities. If we could end all of these unnecessary, arbitrary, unfair, destructive controls, and allowed for more freedom for self determination and to make mistakes or decisions others disagree with we would probably see less dependence on government assistance. "Minimum and living wages are just more controls, one-size fits-all non-solutions that demonize success.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter

Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: Techdirt Logo Gear
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads


Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.