If you see "Trust and Safety" it is actually a partnership between major tech companies. It provides guidance on how their TOS / community standards should be defined. Twitter was also a member until Elon bought it out. This is where things like policies on misinformation come from (or anything in general really). Every major social media company you can imagine is part of it, Discord, Reddit, Meta, Apple, etc.
The part that always concerns me is things like this are ripe for abuse. Whoever controls the partnership potentially controls all major platforms. They'll say you dont have to follow it to the letter, but that doesn't mean some wont.
This is also why when reddit changes internal rules Discord follows suit.
I am interested in this subject because I've seen Facebook become hostile over the years on specific types of remarks. I actually quit Facebook over its AI moderation, I made a harmless meme / joke comment and it flagged me, and when I appealed, it flagged me. Meanwhile others post much worse and I get dinged for making meme references that harm no one, my what? 50 friends on facebook will read it and not get my reference?
I've also seen other platforms shift their policies (a reddit comment section today is a night and day difference from a reddit thread in say 2010).
Right now Tiktok is suppressing any content related to the LA protests, they adopted new terms to avoid this censorship by saying they are 'music festivals'
It reminds me of the play on words they do in Chinese's social media to avoid this kind of censorship
>It reminds me of the play on words they do in Chinese's social media to avoid this kind of censorship
A new way of speaking which removes nuance and is formed entirely of acceptable concepts and terminology as determined by the regime. We could call it newspeak.
Keep in mind the government pumps tens of thousands of enlisted through military intelligence analyst programs every year. These people are trained to sit in a cubicle for 8 hours a day reading mostly garbage and making objective summaries.
So a lot of highly trained intelligence analysts hit the market every year (I personally know about half a dozen). It's just going to be natural that some of the more experienced intelligence analysts are going to be sought out for these content moderation positions, especially now that foreign and nation-state actors are present.
I am pretty skeptical more of the more "deep-state"/"thought-police" concerns. Obviously these people are going to be biased towards collecting intelligence and collaborating with the government. But the CIA would almost certainly rather keep any media manipulation campaigns clandestine and in-house rather than trust former analysts to do their bidding.
15 comments
[ 4.3 ms ] story [ 36.0 ms ] threadThe part that always concerns me is things like this are ripe for abuse. Whoever controls the partnership potentially controls all major platforms. They'll say you dont have to follow it to the letter, but that doesn't mean some wont.
This is also why when reddit changes internal rules Discord follows suit.
I am interested in this subject because I've seen Facebook become hostile over the years on specific types of remarks. I actually quit Facebook over its AI moderation, I made a harmless meme / joke comment and it flagged me, and when I appealed, it flagged me. Meanwhile others post much worse and I get dinged for making meme references that harm no one, my what? 50 friends on facebook will read it and not get my reference?
I've also seen other platforms shift their policies (a reddit comment section today is a night and day difference from a reddit thread in say 2010).
Digital Trust & Safety Partnership website here:
https://dtspartnership.org/
Discussion then: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32191637
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MintPress_News
It reminds me of the play on words they do in Chinese's social media to avoid this kind of censorship
A new way of speaking which removes nuance and is formed entirely of acceptable concepts and terminology as determined by the regime. We could call it newspeak.
Seems double-plus ungood to me.
So a lot of highly trained intelligence analysts hit the market every year (I personally know about half a dozen). It's just going to be natural that some of the more experienced intelligence analysts are going to be sought out for these content moderation positions, especially now that foreign and nation-state actors are present.
I am pretty skeptical more of the more "deep-state"/"thought-police" concerns. Obviously these people are going to be biased towards collecting intelligence and collaborating with the government. But the CIA would almost certainly rather keep any media manipulation campaigns clandestine and in-house rather than trust former analysts to do their bidding.
It basically says that they are watching you so you will self censor.