Even if a machine learning classifier can give a numeric probability on how likely a piece of content is to be toxic or harassing, it’s not clear what should be done with that prediction, particularly given the inevitability of bias or error. wired.co.uk/article/social…
Setting a platform-wide bar for “quality” that is too high will screen out too many things that are actually OK, and setting it too low will permit too many problematic things to pass.
This entire framing of the problem of “content moderation” is flawed. Someone’s experience on a platform is much more than the abuse-likelihood score of each piece of content they see. It is affected by every feature and design choice
To build solutions for the entire space of abuse issues is no easy task. It gets harder when every new feature is also a potential vector of abuse.
Platforms have a responsibility to build in basic protection mechanisms, and this is necessary – but not sufficient. Platform-level decisions will always be crude, hewing to a lowest common denominator, and are not contextualised or personalised.
To give users more control over their individual experience, platforms must first build moderation and safety constructs such as reporting, blocking and muting.
But they should also open up their trust and safety APIs, so that others can invent a full range of consumer solutions. This would allow third-party developers to build creative, sometimes specialised or maybe “niche”, services for users that need and prioritise different things.
Using social media platforms right now is a little like being able to travel on roads only in a standard-issue open-air vehicle with no protection against people furiously slinging eggs, and given an air horn to signal for help (but no one comes).
I have had the privilege to be using @blockpartyapp_ developed by @triketora and I must say I wish this tool was around earlier. My mental health would have been in much better place! Thanks for all the hard work Block Party! You have been a game changer!
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Georgians’ collective memory has been shaped by pride in their struggle for independence since 1989 and fear of existential threats. This narrative has overshadowed other domestic challenges and increased Georgia’s reliance on individual leaders. carnegieeurope.eu/2021/04/27/str…
Georgians are proud to see their country as an established democracy. Yet, thirty years on, the mainstream historical narrative still portrays the country as vulnerable and facing existential threats to its statehood.
Change is necessary, yet experience has proved that replacing a leader without altering policy only temporarily eases the situation and, in the longer run, fosters a sense of frustration and polarization in society.
Long 🧵on Azerbaijan’s murky gold mining business explained as the news of AzerGold state company exploring partnership with Turkey’s Cengiz Holding for mining.
In 2006 Pres. Aliyev awarded a consortium of 6 goldfields worth billions of $ to one company in the UK & 3 in offshore jurisdictions: Globex International LLP, Londex Resources S.A., Willy & Meyris S.A. and Fargate Mining Corporation.
A 2012 investigation by @RFERL & @OCCRP showed the president’s daughters, Leyla & Arzu Aliyeva were behind Globex International LLP which owned 11% of the consortium.