This is an example of why Mastodon is the future:
On Threads they have been using algorithms to moderate user content, but The Verge now reports how a large number of popular accounts have been banned, simply because Zuckerberg's software mistook their good content for bad content.
That is the difference:
On Mastodon, we have humans taking part in the moderation of humans. But on commercial social media, humans are pushed around like sheep.
🇳🇱
I agree that using AI to moderate without a human sanity checking it is a bad practice.
In many ways mastodon is superior for using humans, but honestly the bias afrom humans is a pretty big problem too. So im not sure mastodon is all that superior in the end, just a different set of problems arising from each approach and neither is great.
A better solution is to remove any sense of global moderation all together and create a system where the individyual users can be in control of what they see without having to put in the effort of moderating by hand case by case.
The way I'd achieve that is use a combination of AI and humans simply to flag accounts and servers as allowing certain content, have the human tagging be the entire population using a voting system. The tags dont do anything though, or moderate anyone. The users then can decide what tags they want to ban. This way the user is still in complete control of what they see and you dont have the issues with a purely human or purely AI moderator team.
@freemo @randahl
Yeah, sort of.
But then I see reasons like
"Federates with the usual suspects"
or
https://fba.ryona.agency/?reason=Federates+with+the+usual+suspects
where we have over 800 rejects with that (or a similar) reason.
Where we have people who block servers because they talk to the "wrong people".
SMH.
@mhjohnson @randahl
You certianly point to a very real and toxic problem.
@freemo @randahl Sounds like next-gen Digg? (I just looked and digg.com still exists - not sure how they run it compared to Kevin Rose days)