Content Moderation Is Impossible: You Can't Expect Moderators To Understand Satire Or Irony

from the just-doesn't-work-that-way dept

The latest in our never ending series of posts on why content moderation at scale is impossible to do well, involves Twitter now claiming that a tweet from the account @TheTweetOfGod somehow violates its policies:

If you're unfamiliar with that particular Twitter account, it is a popular account that pretends to tweet pithy statements from "God" that attempt (often not very well, in my opinion) to be funny in a sort of ironic, satirical way. I've found it to miss a lot more than it hits, but that's only my personal opinion. Apparently, Twitter's content moderation elves had a problem with the tweet above. And it's not hard to see why. Somewhere Twitter has a set of rules that include that it's a violation of its rules to mock certain classes of people -- and that includes making fun of people for their sexual orientation, which violates Twitter's rules on "hateful conduct." And it's not difficult to see how a random content moderation employee would skim a tweet like the one flagged above, not recognize the context, the fact that it's an attempt at satire, and flag it as a problem.

Thankfully, in this case, Twitter did correct it upon appeal, but it's just another reminder that so many things tend to trip up content moderators -- especially when they have to moderate a huge amount of content -- and satire and irony are categories that frequently trip up such systems.

Filed Under: content moderation, god, irony, satire, tweet of god
Companies: twitter


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    That One Guy (profile), 13 Jun 2019 @ 5:32pm

    Too good to miss

    Of all the times not to include the 'If you can't read/see the tweet it says' bit...

    The 'offending' tweet in question:

    'If gay people are a mistake, they're a mistake I've made hundreds of millions of times, which proves I'm incompetent and shouldn't be relied upon for anything.'

    And it's not difficult to see how a random content moderation employee would skim a tweet like the one flagged above, not recognize the context, the fact that it's an attempt at satire, and flag it as a problem.

    No, it really is hard to see how someone could read that and not realize it was satire/humor. The only way it could have been more obvious is if they opened it with 'THIS IS SATIRE' in bold.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      nasch (profile), 14 Jun 2019 @ 6:20am

      Re: Too good to miss

      If reading comprehension is so low as to not understand this tweet (whether due to hiring non-native-speaking moderators or innate ability), then what is the point of even having these moderators? We're talking about people moderating Twitter who are unable to understand tweets.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2019 @ 6:53am

      Re: Too good to miss

      Worse, Mike wrote they "had a problem with the tweet above", and I'll I could think is they didn't like the word "fuck". They actually had a problem with the tweet depicted in the image linked from the above tweet (which is a shitty way to reference a tweet—not everyone can read images).

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 13 Jun 2019 @ 7:28pm

    Context was a mistake.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 13 Jun 2019 @ 7:33pm

    Moderation = censorship.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 13 Jun 2019 @ 7:44pm

    Of course posts which do all of that to white men are permitted.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    ECA (profile), 13 Jun 2019 @ 7:55pm

    OPINION/SATIRE/FUN AND ASSHOLES...

    Dear god..
    IF we are all supposed to be the same, WHY in hell did you give us Brain and a Dick?? 1 head was enough, 2 is insane..

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    One Cheeseburger Away From Keeling Over, 13 Jun 2019 @ 7:57pm

    Content Moderation Is Impossible? You do it right here!

    Or are you today claiming Techdirt doesn't moderate at all? Your official position is that it's "the community". But I get confused because "Gary" (who's actually minion Timothy Geigner, aka "Dark Helmet") keeps claiming Techdirt DOES moderates.

    Anyhoo, my comments here get hidden, so by whatever system and by whoever, you must claim that Techdirt has sound practice, right? So why haven't you brought your method to attention of these "platforms" which keep flailing? -- You wouldn't charge them for it, either, with your notions of not protecting ideas and "sharing". You also have the IN to get attention. So I'm mystified why the Masnick system isn't in place...

    Now, all ya got yourself here is another anomaly of no importance, but you won't stick up for those with substantive political views who get arbitrarily "de-platformed", so what good are you?

    YOU state (in rare declaration) that plaforms have a totally arbitrary RIGHT to do so:

    "And, I think it's fairly important to state that these platforms have their own First Amendment rights, which allow them to deny service to anyone."

    https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170825/01300738081/nazis-internet-policing-content -free-speech.shtml

    You're NOT against the act in principle, if it's taken against those you view as political opponents, like Alex Jones or "conservatives" even when well within common law terms: you're okay if it's for "hate speech". It's ONLY when YOUR goals are being thwarted that you object.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      identicon
      One Cheeseburger Away From Keeling Over, 13 Jun 2019 @ 7:57pm

      Re: Content Moderation Is Impossible? You do it right here!

      Since you not only have no philosophical objection to the meat ax approach, but STATE repeatedly that "platforms" have a right to do so entirely arbitrarily, why are you wringing your hands, yet again, over remarks you state are of no importance?

      Clearly your goal here is to try and prevent legislation that would require "platforms" to "moderate" in a neutral way.

      Of course you also have the notion that these "platforms" are fundamental and absolutely necessary, cannot be regulated until they DO come up with "possible" system, let alone shut down, even though are proven to be against societal interests.

      As always your real purpose with irrelevant anomaly is to guarantee corporate profits AND corporate arbitrary control of ALL speech.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Stephen T. Stone (profile), 13 Jun 2019 @ 8:25pm

        why haven't you brought your method to attention of these "platforms" which keep flailing?

        What works for one platform won’t necessarily work for another.

        all ya got yourself here is another anomaly of no importance

        One is an anomaly. Two is a coincidence. Three or more is a pattern. Considering how often bans/suspensions like this one happen on Twitter (and on other platforms), they are not anomalies.

        you won't stick up for those with substantive political views who get arbitrarily "de-platformed"

        What political views, dear sir, are they being banned for expressing?

        plaforms have a totally arbitrary RIGHT to do so

        They do. If you ran a blog for your political beliefs and had open comments on it, you could ban commenters for expressing beliefs that run contrary to yours. Nothing could stop you from doing so.

        You're [for] the act in principle, if it's taken against those you view as political opponents

        Prove it.

        common law

        Courts haven’t ever ruled that a platform must be forced to host every kind of legal speech. And you haven’t provided an argument for why a platform should be forced to host speech. Your citation of “common law” means nothing here.

        you're okay if it's for "hate speech". It's ONLY when YOUR goals are being thwarted that you object.

        Again: Prove it.

        Since you not only have no philosophical objection to the meat ax approach, but STATE repeatedly that "platforms" have a right to do so entirely arbitrarily, why are you wringing your hands, yet again, over remarks you state are of no importance?

        Because it shows an example of the impossibility of “perfect” content moderation at the scale of a site like Twitter. Given how people think moderation can be “perfected”, even at that scale, showing examples that prove otherwise offers a meaningful rebuttal to a worthless argument.

        your goal here is to try and prevent legislation that would require "platforms" to "moderate" in a neutral way

        For what reason should a Black Lives Matter forum be forced by law to host White supremacist propaganda for the sake of “content neutrality”?

        you also have the notion that these "platforms" are fundamental and absolutely necessary

        Once more with feeling: Prove it.

        cannot be regulated until they DO come up with "possible" system, let alone shut down

        Any government regulation of content moderation, up to and including the shutdown of a platform, would constitute a violation of the First Amendment.

        your real purpose with irrelevant anomaly is to guarantee corporate profits AND corporate arbitrary control of ALL speech

        …says the absolute asshole who wholeheartedly supports copyright maximalism, which would also guarantee corporate profits and arbitrary corporate control of all speech.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          btr1701 (profile), 14 Jun 2019 @ 9:58am

          Re:

          Courts haven’t ever ruled that a platform must be forced to host every kind of legal speech. And you haven’t provided an argument for why a platform should be forced to host speech. Your citation of “common law” means nothing here.

          Even less than nothing, because common law in the area of free speech has been entirely supplanted in the US by constitutional law. Common law literally has no application in issues concerning the 1st Amendment,

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 13 Jun 2019 @ 9:17pm

        Re: Re:

        Oh, it's not content moderation.

        It's called a DMCA vote.

        Or FOSTA vote. Or Article 13 vote. Take your pick. You get one anyway - an uncontested, generally non-transparent way of making things harder to access, just like the way your corporate RIAA masters wanted.

        Eat it!

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 13 Jun 2019 @ 10:49pm

      Re: I am the real Sparta-helmet

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Daydream, 13 Jun 2019 @ 8:17pm

    It was obviously quote-mined.

    "[...] Gay people are a mistake, they're a mistake [...]"
    ~God

    Or alternatively:

    "[...] Gay people are [...] incompetent and shouldn't be relied on for anything."
    ~God

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Oliver, 13 Jun 2019 @ 10:45pm

    CDA 230?

    Hi Mike

    Isn't this a gift from CDA 230, that requires that content gets at least moderated?
    I think that is were yur critisism must be directed at.

    Can't have it both ways.

    Cheers oliver

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Dan, 13 Jun 2019 @ 11:21pm

      Re: CDA 230?

      CDA 230 requires no such thing. It encourages moderation (or, more properly, removes a disincentive to moderate), but it does not require anything of the kind.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Rocky, 13 Jun 2019 @ 11:31pm

      Re: CDA 230?

      Uhm, CDA 230 doesn't require that content gets moderated. Where did you get that idea from?

      What you fail to grasp is that without CDA 230 a site either can't accept UGC or they must moderate EVERYTHING posted and as Mike pointed out in the article, is that moderation isn't something that's easy to do in general but impossible at scale.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2019 @ 12:55am

        Re: Re: CDA 230?

        It was an implied understanding that tech companies would not abuse 230 protection as they have. They use it as a sword, not a shield. RipoffReport.com is a good example.

        UGC would still exist without 230 as it does in other countries, due to the notice requirement similar to the DMCA.

        Moderation isn't necessary if people would grow up and start filtering stuff, though this would reveal that it's not that they don't want to read what they can easily avoid, they just don't want OTHERS reading it.

        Sites which spread anti-vaxxer information should be held liable for measles outbreaks but aren't. Sites which allow online mobs to spill over into real violence should also be liable. Sites which allow people to be harassed as well. 230 enables all the horrible things we see online, plus it means you can't trust what you read, including advertising.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          PaulT (profile), 14 Jun 2019 @ 1:12am

          Re: Re: Re: CDA 230?

          "plus it means you can't trust what you read, including advertising"

          You think that getting rid of section 230 will STOP information online? You truly are dense...

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2019 @ 1:56am

          Re: Re: Re: CDA 230?

          You managed to fit more garbage in that one post than most landfills collect in a year. Congrats?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2019 @ 2:00am

          Re: Ziiiippppp

          “It was an implied understanding that tech companies would not abuse 230 protection as they have.”

          You got a citation there cowboy?

          Cause you got a real purty mouth.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            PaulT (profile), 14 Jun 2019 @ 2:06am

            Re: Re: Ziiiippppp

            It's one of his tactics. There was never any agreement in reality, but if his warped mind reads that something was "implied" between the lines, he can pretend it says whatever he wants it to say. The fact that nobody but him reads it that way is just further proof of Google conspiracies.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2019 @ 2:24am

              Re: Re: Re: Ziiiippppp

              I know. There’s no point in debating him. Therefore I just content my self to bait him. Bad habit, I know.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2019 @ 2:46am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Ziiiippppp

                I dunno - That One Guy would probably call it a bad habit, but I personally find it entertaining as hell.

                It's funny seeing how horse with no name has devolved from concerned Prenda fanboy to the farcical travesty worrying about Masnick's wife that he's become.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2019 @ 3:00am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ziiiippppp

                  Between him and ootb’s declining sanity the only comparable dive I can remember, is the Morning Stars fall from grace.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  That One Guy (profile), 14 Jun 2019 @ 3:05am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ziiiippppp

                  Eh, depends on a couple of factors.

                  Pre-emptive troll baiting? Yeah, don't do that, bad enough when they show up on their own, no need to mention them before that. Comments like that I flag just the same as the troll comments, as that's just spamming the comment section in an attempt to draw in someone to fill it with rubbish.

                  Beyond that... so long as people keep in mind that they're giving the trolls the very thing they want(attention), avoid sinking to the troll's level by doing nothing but slinging insults, and at least try to keep the responses productive to avoid back and forths consisting of basically 'Yes it is!'/'No it isn't!' while I consider it a waste of time and not the best use of effort everyone needs a hobby and whack-a-troll can be entertaining at times, so knock yourself out.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2019 @ 4:58am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ziiiippppp

                  Wisdom for the ages:

                  horse with no name just hates it when due process is enforced.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                Gary (profile), 14 Jun 2019 @ 6:42am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Ziiiippppp

                I know. There’s no point in debating him. Therefore I just content my self to bait him. Bad habit, I know.

                That is a bad habit and you are a terrible person for treating such a notorious scammer like that. Jhon has suffered at the hands of everyone here who thinks his unsubstantiated claims are fucking hilarious. He should be free to lie and rip people off without such contempt.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2019 @ 2:25am

          Re: Re: Re: CDA 230?

          plus it means you can't trust what you read, including advertising

          You already couldn't trust advertising before the Internet was a thing. Actually, ads on the Internet aren't usually an issue for the conscientious user, because Adblock exists. Fuck if I'm letting your RIAA track me.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2019 @ 3:29am

          Re: Re: Re: CDA 230?

          RipoffReport.com is a good example.

          Why do you hate that sites? Is it because it makes scamming people harder?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2019 @ 7:06am

          Re: Re: Re: CDA 230?

          "It was an implied understanding that tech companies would not abuse 230 protection as they have"

          Perhaps if you were to explain your point of view providing examples and description of any extrapolation.

          In addition, there are several unsupported accusations in your post. Perhaps you could elucidate.

          "Moderation isn't necessary if people would grow up and start filtering stuff"

          • There would be no need for police nor prisons if everyone obeyed the laws ... LOL, are you really that daft?

          "Sites which spread anti-vaxxer information"

          • Which sites might that be and how are they spreading anything? Third party liability is stupid and will cause all sort of damage to innocent parties, why are you so cavalier about it?

          "Sites which allow people to be harassed"

          • Do you need a safe space?

          "230 enables all the horrible things we see online"

          • How does 230 enable the horrible things I see coming out of the mouths of asshole politicians and their wise guys?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          btr1701 (profile), 14 Jun 2019 @ 10:03am

          Re: Re: Re: CDA 230?

          Sites which spread anti-vaxxer information should be held liable for measles outbreaks but aren't.

          Such an imposition of liability wouldn't meet the Brandenburg test, so no.

          Sites which allow online mobs to spill over into real violence should also be liable.

          Also wouldn't meet the elements in Brandenburg even if applied to the mob members and violent actors themselves, let alone the internet platform that is one level removed from them.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        ECA (profile), 14 Jun 2019 @ 5:16pm

        Re: Re: CDA 230?

        Ranks up there with Bible thumpers NEVER able to find that part about NO ABORTION..

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 13 Jun 2019 @ 11:43pm

      Re: CDA 230?

      CDA 230 doesn't require moderation

      It allows moderation

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        PaulT (profile), 14 Jun 2019 @ 12:45am

        Re: Re: CDA 230?

        Yes. As with net neutrality, the people who are critical of section 230 seem to have an understanding of it that's completely the opposite of what it actually is in reality.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2019 @ 7:10am

          Re: Re: Re: CDA 230?

          Bizarro World

          A good example is the word "literally",
          some use the word as though it meant "figuratively".

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            JoeCool (profile), 14 Jun 2019 @ 7:37am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: CDA 230?

            So many do that they have officially made "figuratively" one of the definitions of "literally" in the dictionary. Ain't life screwed up...

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            btr1701 (profile), 14 Jun 2019 @ 10:13am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: CDA 230?

            A good example is the word "literally", some use the word as though it meant "figuratively".

            Including the dictionary. (see definition 4 below)

            The ignorant have done to 'literally' what they did to the word 'decimate', which actually means 'to reduce by 10%'. This would leave 90% of whatever is being described intact, which means it really isn't a good word to use when describing something that's been all but wiped out. We already have a perfectly good word for that: 'annihilate'. But so many people-- including our industrious authors here on TechDirt-- incorrectly insist on using 'decimate' to mean 'annihilate' that the dictionaries have changed the definition of the word.

            literally - adverb

            1. in the literal or strict sense:
              She failed to grasp the metaphor and interpreted the poem literally.

            2. in a literal manner; word for word: to translate literally.

            3. actually; without exaggeration or inaccuracy:
              The city was literally destroyed.

            4. in effect; in substance; very nearly; virtually:
              I literally died when she walked out on stage in that costume.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2019 @ 11:48am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: CDA 230?

            A good example is the word "literally",
            some use the word as though it meant "figuratively".

            Oh the irony!

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            PaulT (profile), 15 Jun 2019 @ 2:26am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: CDA 230?

            I am usually very careful to use certain words the way they should be, although I have given up on trying to correct people when they use it wrongly. I find that not getting angry when people type "loose" instead of "lose" or use the phrase "should of" helps my internet day along...

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 14 Jun 2019 @ 1:19am

      Re: CDA 230?

      Uh... no? I honestly have no idea where you could have gotten the idea that 230 requires moderation rather than allows it, as all it really says is that if a platform decides to moderate the act of doing so does not make them liable for the content on their platform that they didn't create/post.

      At most it encourages moderation that wouldn't have otherwise happened if a platform had to worry that moderating any content would open them up to liability for all of it, by making clear that whether a site moderates or not they still aren't liable for what they don't create.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2019 @ 7:11am

        Re: Re: CDA 230?

        I" honestly have no idea where you could have gotten the idea that 230 requires moderation rather than allows it"

        It came from where the sun don't shine.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      techflaws (profile), 14 Jun 2019 @ 2:27am

      Re: CDA 230?

      Hi Oliver,

      isn't it weird that your question is entirely based on your interpretation which is not based in fact?

      Cheers!

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Éibhear (profile), 14 Jun 2019 @ 1:11am

    Why was it flagged

    It would be nice, though I don't know how it could be done in a way that wouldn't be roundly criticised, for Twitter to specify how such a tweet came to the moderator's attention. I ask this, because I see communities on twitter encourage each other to report tweets that could only marginally be considered offensive or abusive. When you see such a patently satirical tweet being blocked, I often wonder if part of the transaction is the moderator trying to decide (in the 4 seconds she has available to her) between the large number of "reports" a tweet has received and the likelihood that the tweet hasn't objectively broken the rules.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Glenn, 14 Jun 2019 @ 4:00am

    "You have a basic human right to your opinion... unless you disagree with me."

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      PaulT (profile), 14 Jun 2019 @ 4:25am

      Re:

      Nobody's taking away your opinion. It's just that private establishments are allowed to tell you to take it somewhere else if they wish. Nothing has changed here, it's been that way for many years.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        btr1701 (profile), 14 Jun 2019 @ 10:18am

        Re: Re:

        When he says "You have a basic human right to your opinion... unless you disagree with me", he's talking about Twitter users, not Twitter itself.

        Many users and their followers make sport out of reporting anything that people they don't like say. And if a tweet has 1500 complaints, the suspicion is the moderators don't read it at all and just assume there must be something wrong with it if so many people have reported it.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          PaulT (profile), 15 Jun 2019 @ 2:24am

          Re: Re: Re:

          "When he says "You have a basic human right to your opinion... unless you disagree with me", he's talking about Twitter users, not Twitter itself."

          That makes even less sense. Yeah, when you're exposing yourself to a global audience, some people are going to tell you you're a dick and to stfu. Some people might even genuinely wish to silence you. But, that's human nature, not people violating your rights.

          "Many users and their followers make sport out of reporting anything that people they don't like say"

          Yeah, that's wrong. But, speaking as someone who pirate a lot of VHS tapes back in the day because "moral guardians" decided they shouldn't be legally allowed, it's hardly new. If you deal with the public some will be assholes, and if you're big some will try to destroy you. Twitter could deal with this better, but at the end of the day this is like some guy getting you barred for a pub because he started a fight with you. It sucks, it shouldn't happen, but it's your own fault if that's the only pub in your life.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Chris Clark, 14 Jun 2019 @ 5:22am

    I find it laughable to see that Twitter is trying to enforce their "hate speech" policy. Every day, I see a lot of the high profile people that were de-platformed elsewhere getting to keep their Twitter accounts active. Just like with Crowder on YouTube, if you have a lot of followers, you get the "rules for thee, not for me" treatment because social media sites like the ad revenue they get by allowing known violators to keep their accounts until, possibly, public outrage rises to the point that they have to backpedal and come up with another reason that they violate policy. The platform will save face and say "They totally didn't violate policy before, but now they do, so they get the Über-ban"

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Gary (profile), 14 Jun 2019 @ 7:15am

      Re:

      Uneven enforcement is a problem when you have such a large pool of users and moderators. Impossible to train 1000 moderators from across the globe and expect them to all have the same opinion on what is offensive.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        PaulT (profile), 14 Jun 2019 @ 7:52am

        Re: Re:

        ...and even if that were possible, it would be impossible to have moderated end content that everybody in the world who saw it would find equally acceptable.

        As evidenced by the Crowder case - some people are complaining that he didn't really violate T&Cs so should never have been banned. Others are complaining that he was obviously breaking them for a long time and it's unacceptable that it's taken this long. Whatever they do or don't, someone will have an issue with it.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          btr1701 (profile), 14 Jun 2019 @ 10:23am

          Re: Re: Re:

          As evidenced by the Crowder case - some people are complaining that he didn't really violate T&Cs so should never have been banned.

          More accurately, they're complaining that he was demonetized when YouTube itself admitted that he hadn't violated any of its rules; that it was done merely to placate a vocal critic with a significant platform from he could shout at them.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            That One Guy (profile), 14 Jun 2019 @ 7:30pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            More accurately, they're complaining that he was demonetized when YouTube itself admitted that he hadn't violated any of its rules

            ... after the first pass, but as this article demonstrates quite nicely just because a platform makes that initial judgement doesn't necessarily mean they were right(or actually put any effort into the initial review).

            If the finding from the original pass is to be treated as The Word Of God(pun absolutely intended) then that would mean that the tweet discussed in this very article was correctly found to be in violation of the rules, and it was a mistake for the company to reverse course after it was brought to their attention because the initial ruling couldn't possibly have been wrong.

            Also if you're going to make the 'he didn't actually violate the rules, YT was just pressured into bringing the hammer down on him' argument then it would seem to be trivial to turn that right around and suggest that the reason he wasn't found in violation on that first pass is because he runs a popular channel and YT didn't want to give the boot to someone that was good for business, violations or not, and it was only when public backlash started costing them more than they got from him that they demonetized him.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              PaulT (profile), 15 Jun 2019 @ 2:19am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Exactly. There's no right to use YouTube, they can kick you off for whatever reason as long as it's not discrimination against a protected class. T&Cs are just the excuse, but it's not really needed. He can get back every penny he paid to host his videos there if he wants lol. PR might mean they can't just say "too many people think you're an asshole", but if the reason's just "our support team are tired of being spammed by people who hate you", there's no reason he shouldn't be kicked off.

              The good news is that instead of just whining, there should be enough people now motivated to create a competitor to YouTube that are OK with putting up with his shit, and he can take similarly mind people with him. Let's see if these guys actually do that or if they just want to violate YouTube's freedom of association.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 15 Jun 2019 @ 3:00am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                The good news is that instead of just whining, there should be enough people now motivated to create a competitor to YouTube that are OK with putting up with his shit,

                They already exist. there is bitchute or they can join the fediverse with peertube.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                btr1701 (profile), 18 Jun 2019 @ 12:19pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                There's no right to use YouTube

                I never claimed there was. YouTube is, however, a business and it's perfectly legitimate and acceptable to point out when they're being asshats to their customers and/or fail to apply the rules they themselves have established in a constituent manner.

                When a restaurant gives a diner shitty service and the customer complains about it on Yelp or somewhere like that, no one says to the customer, "Well, there's no right to eat at that diner so you shouldn't bitch about it." But for some reason when it comes to social media platforms, the fact that you don't have a right to use them means any complaints you have about how they treat you and others are somehow inappropriate.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  btr1701 (profile), 18 Jun 2019 @ 12:21pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  constituent manner.

                  Should be "consistent manner".

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  PaulT (profile), 18 Jun 2019 @ 12:43pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  Yes and both establishments have the right to show you the door. If you feel they are being unfair by all means express that, perhaps even organise to get others to join you in a boycott or at least choose an appropriate time and method to complain to management.

                  The issue isn’t those people, it’s the people who believe they have a right to stay even after being told that they’re disturbing everyone’s else’s meal. Even if you’re ultimately in the right, unless they’re breaking other laws by asking you to leave, it’s their prerogative to do so.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              btr1701 (profile), 18 Jun 2019 @ 12:14pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              ... after the first pass

              And the only reason Crowder even got a second pass was because it was done merely to placate a vocal critic with a significant platform from which he could shout at YouTube.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            PaulT (profile), 15 Jun 2019 @ 2:15am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Those are the risks of using a platform not owned by you, and that is more swayed by advertisers than anything you do yourself.

            But, he chose that platform. If he knows anything about business, he's not depending on a single supplier for all his income so should be fine. If not, well...

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Satan, 14 Jun 2019 @ 6:01am

    That's what -God gets for trying to be a Twitter edgelord!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    DannyB (profile), 14 Jun 2019 @ 6:23am

    But what about Sarcasm?

    Content moderators may not understand Satire or Irony, but they always understand Sarcasm every single time. Thus no need to ever use sarc tags.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    crade (profile), 14 Jun 2019 @ 6:48am

    But if you read the tweet as intended it is still breaking that rule by mocking a certain protected class of people.. It's just mocking people of particular religious affiliations (ie the religions include prejudice against gay people in their creed) and not gay people.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      nasch (profile), 14 Jun 2019 @ 11:49am

      Re:

      I would say it's specifically mocking the group of people who believe that God mistakenly created gay people, which is not a protected category. It's also an empty set (or nearly so). Anyone who thinks being gay is wrong because God says so almost certainly also denies that anyone is innately gay, so God didn't make any mistakes.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    icon
    Zof (profile), 14 Jun 2019 @ 8:16am

    Gentle Reminder

    The same twitter that determined "learn to code" was nazi hate speech. Yeah. Those morons. People should just leave their echo chamber. How many times does twitter have to be wrong and humiliate itself. I love how people are just suing now. Vic Mignogna got sick of it. He's suing every media outlet that slandered him and is winning. I hope that becomes a popular trend. We need to take out the gawkers and other trash.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      PaulT (profile), 14 Jun 2019 @ 8:35am

      Re: Gentle Reminder

      "The same twitter that determined "learn to code" was nazi hate speech"

      Did they? I can't keep track of the whining, there's so much of it. If true, maybe the guys who were doing that can code their own platform so that they don't fall foul of the one they were allow temporarily to use for free. Or, at least understand that there's a lot of other platforms that already exist and the best way to react would be to use one.

      Anyway, you're pretty dumb if you believe that there was either a human being involved in that action, or if you believe that it's possible to moderate a platform with 100% accuracy. Suing Twitter will not change this.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Toom1275 (profile), 14 Jun 2019 @ 10:01am

        Re: Re: Gentle Reminder

        Did they?

        As usual, it's Zof deliberately mischaracterizing what happened.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          PaulT (profile), 15 Jun 2019 @ 2:14am

          Re: Re: Re: Gentle Reminder

          Yep, I'm familiar, it's just that when people make strangely specific claims, I like to prod for evidence. If provided, it's often fun to see the discrepancies between what the evidence says and what they claim it says.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2019 @ 10:57am

      Pointed Reminder

      There is nothing gentle about your comment.

      Plus, I don't see anywhere where this guys has won any of the lawsuits, they are all still in progress. Maybe check your facts first?

      Besides, weren't you leaving and never coming back to this site?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2019 @ 11:52am

      Re: Gentle Reminder

      Why are you still here? You are proven liar!

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2019 @ 3:46pm

      Re: Gentle Reminder you’re a lying twat

      Go whine somewhere else.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    ANON, 14 Jun 2019 @ 8:25am

    Lost in Translation

    I recall from a book "If At All Possible Involve a Cow" which details practical jokes over the years... it mentioned the story of a set of university recycle bins labelled "white paper" and "colored paper". Someone replaced the label with "paper of color" which elicited this note from administration - "If this is a joke I find it in poor taste, if someone has an actual problem come see me."

    The book noted the pithy observation:

    "Humor is lost on some people."

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2019 @ 8:27am

    Censorship test.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Chip, 14 Jun 2019 @ 8:35am

    Somtimes "People" have Trouble undersanding Satre!

    Because they are "stuipd!" STUPID! Not "smart" like Me.

    Some "people" even think tht I am Satire. I am not Satire! I am a Real "boy"!

    Every Nation eats the Paint chips it Deserves!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 15 Jun 2019 @ 5:10am

    Is it because it makes scamming people harder?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


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)

Close

Add A Reply

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: I Invented Email
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

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