For techbro ghouls (remember I mentioned scalability, exit etc.) moderation is “difficult” is because it is a cost centre and it has liability risks (they could in theory have to take responsibility for their actions such a dismissive, callous attitude towards moderation).
While oligarchs like Zuckerberg feel confident enough on their hold on the system to say thingslike:
Earlier this week, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg told Vox that his company was well aware that critics say the social media platform has been used to spread misinformation and hate speech in Burma, explaining that this has “gotten a lot of focus inside the company.”
But what does this have to do with my original take on Rose and Ohanian?
Is moderation difficult? What makes it difficult?
What happens to the “spirit of discovery and genuine community” when moderation fails?
Oh my God, yes… So many things it’s hard to even consider how to answer…
We have the Internet today. Because moderation has broken down everywhere, it has been defeated, engineered around.
For techbro ghouls (remember I mentioned scalability, exit etc.) moderation is “difficult” is because it is a cost centre and it has liability risks (they could in theory have to take responsibility for their actions such a dismissive, callous attitude towards moderation).
When moderation fails, you have situation such as FB contributing to mass killings in Myanmar.
While oligarchs like Zuckerberg feel confident enough on their hold on the system to say things like:
But what does this have to do with my original take on Rose and Ohanian?