,
5 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
Hard? Let's make this simple, non-techy. Jack was faced with a typical management choice and he's pretending like its a new, free-expression issue. It's simple: all rules are at risk of being over or underinclusive. Not unique. Safety rules always falls on one side or other. 1/
Take rules regarding airline travel and security: a rule that says anyone who travels last minute and pays with cash will get additional screening (for terrorism or illegal behavior). That's not true in ALL instances, so its an overinclusive rule. 2/
So your pool is large but that's better than it being too small. It doesn't mean that the rule is wrong, only that then you need ways to make it more refined, like exceptions for TSA preclear or over 75yo). These may be underinclusive so its a constant balance. Nothing new. 3/
But the notion that a rule that is overinclusive is per se bad is simply a juvenile (and self-serving) way for Jack to explain why the platform is a cesspool for Nazis. So don't focus on Nazi vs. politician; simply focus on how absurd the explanation is regardless of content. 4/
Every rule is over or underinclusive. That's not the point. The point is whether the mission of company is better served by the algorithm being overinclusive (get rid of Nazis and figure out what to do with Republicans) or underinclusive (cesspool for Nazis). Jack has chosen.
