I think Coca-Cola prefers to gather information about consumer information in ways that are more reliable and cost effective than having people read and respond to whimsical email feedback, so as far as they are concerned, if they analyzed that interaction, they’d probably considered it an efficient system for taking the load off humans.
Reality has a reality bias. If you look at the charts of news sources by partisan lean and factuality, the shape isn’t |\ it’s /\ .
Bias is, by definition, dishonest. Only when you value reality higher than you value your politics do you stay honest. The people at the NYT aren’t proof that liberals are honest, it’s proof that a strong editorial policy forces honesty.
Strong, well-documented and enforced policies are the key to good results, not an expectation that people will be good, inquisitive, and honest because of their political identity.
Whoa. I can imagine the moderation of a video on the 1972 election.
I’ve just read a book about the linguistics of “dirty” words, and it had a chapter on the Dick/Richard problem.
Automated moderation in Quora really sucks also. No explanation, hardly any way to appeal. The SDMB has the best moderation I’ve seen anywhere.
I fully accept that my theory might be wrong. I think it’s worth testing, though. It might be right and the alternative is what? We continue to send anti-fa and fundies out, into the streets, to smack each other with baseball bats? I don’t think that’s the right answer.
That was a joke reference to Stephen Colbert’s appearance at the White House correspondent dinner. The substance was in the rest of my post.
This is the weirdest false dichotomy I have ever encountered. If you want to engage in a great debate it seems to me you need to engage with the arguments presented, not only with the opening joke and the conclusion.
Here’s the middle part of your post:
To me, that just sounds like an angry rant of accusations and propaganda.
Your average right-winger is just some idiot, the same as any other person of any political leaning and it’s not difficult to slap together some stereotypes about the group. Recently, for example, I noted the common conceptions of a left-wing person:
Do you think the Democratic readers of the thread generally took that as a reasonable and accurate description of who they were, or as partisan BS that denied their personal individuality and their diversity and complexity of beliefs?
If those aren’t true of you, then why do you think that your list matches them?
So, your argument is that you’re wrong about liberals, therefore liberals are wrong, too?
And let’s not forget that it was Rumsfeld, not Colbert, who dismissed liberals as being in the “reality-based community”, and considered that something to be scorned.
Then you haven’t paid attention to the right wing cries of Twitter censorship, which accounts are being unbanned or Elon’s statements about moderation.
Before Twitter actually started enacting some serious moderation against problematic posts right wing Twitter was constantly up in arms about being shadowbanned, based in part on misguided analysis of usage patterns and, if we give them the benefit of doubt, cynical observations that such claims gave them followers and clicks. This is pretty identical in shape to the current “stop the steal” movement and other claims US elections are full of fraud, although in much smaller scale.
Many of the accounts reinstated recently, like Marjorie Taylor Greene, Babylon Bee, Jordan Peterson, Donald Trump were originally banned for posting and, in the case of the three first, refusing to delete, tweets with anti-trans content or calls to violence.
These are simple facts, and you comparing them to a list of exaggerated preconceptions of democrat policy positions tells me this is a debate I’m already over and done with.
My argument is that stereotyping is rarely a good system.
Likewise, it’s generally a bad thing to assume that someone means something different than what they say. If I said that Jack thinks the lizard people control everything, and you read it as me believing that the lizard people control everything, I’d vote that you’re reading something into the sentence that isn’t there.
If I continue on to then explain why I think that lizard people believers are crazy, and you’re still trying to convince yourself that somewhere, deep down, I was originally trying to argue that the lizard people are the ones running everything - well…you might want to doubt your original reading.
Not very good for PR, though – “you are about as important to us as a bug”. And what if it had been a legitimate complaint, say about a contaminated product? Would their bots have handled it any better? Maybe the bots are trained to pick up on keywords like “lawsuit”. 
Anyway, a much more relevant example might have been some of the bot replies I got when emailing my ISP about various problems. I didn’t cite them because frankly I don’t remember the details any more, but the responses were wildly off-topic and indicated a complete lack of comprehension. The result is that I never use email problem reporting any more, I just continue working on my computer with my handy desk speakerphone monitoring their “hold” elevator music until I get to speak to an actual human. How is it “efficient” for them to maintain call center operators and have pissed-off customers due to excessive hold times, compared to a more easily load-balanced system of email responses – which they would have if they managed it competently?
There’s undoubtedly problems with automated systems that can aggravate customer interactions, it’s even possible that some or all such systems are less efficient than one with more humans, but it’s difficult for a customer to judge. Take the bot replies from the ISP. Those are likely tailored to the requests they get most often, and when faced with a request that is difficult to parse the system is more likely to interpret it as an unusually worded example of one of those requests, rather than one that is unique and requires human intervention. If that works as designed it is definitely a cost saver. Hundreds of customers get the PDF that tells them to turn their equipment on and off again, solving a configuration issue, instead of having to have a service tec tell them that and sit waiting on the phone until they’re done and go “Oh, it works now!” If one out of a hundred get a useless response and has to call, sit on hold and be annoyed, that’s completely fine. It costs them next to nothing compared to manually handling every single rutine request. And what are you going to do? Change companies? They’re all like that, and your ISP likely gets as many disgruntled former customers of other companies as they lose.
Or maybe everyone now uses the phone … We genuinely can’t tell from this side of the table.
To be fair, I’m not sure what you’re trying to argue for or against. In the quote and in the rest of what you said, I’m not sensing any particular recommendation.
But, let me make this point:
Let’s say that I take a child and, as they grow up, I tell them all about Mr. Rogers. I tell them everything that Mr. Rogers believed and advocated for. But, I also tell them that Mr. Rogers’ name is Charles Manson and I tell them that there are enemies of Charles Manson who cannot be trusted, for they want to tarnish his name and make everyone doubt the teachings.
This child grows up believing in the sayings and beliefs of Charles Manson, friend to all and kindly neighbor. If you tell him that Manson was a crazy guy who had people murdered, he will think that you are lying to him and he will turn away from you.
Is the child a follower of Charles Manson or a follower of Mr. Rogers?
If Coke made you go away in frustration without bugging one of their humans, they succeeded at their goal. The same would the true if you were seriously complaining, not whimsically praising. They don’t want your feedback. They don’t (much) want you happy. They just want you to go away. An anodyne blow-off response works well for that.
Because those are their own complaints. Conservatives are complaining about woke moderation, silencing Covid “information”, silencing views on LGBTQ issues, silencing conservative “activism”. It is the reason Truth Social was created.
Are liberals themselves talking about how they are being ostracized because of their views on gov’t intrusion, treating kids like babies, or participation trophies? Did they create a Twitter clone to offer themselves the freedom to discuss UHC and UBI without being banned?
Ah, so you are using the “People are saying” argument.
That’s one of the weakest and disingenuous methods of debate. “This guy over here is saying this. I’m not saying it, so I won’t stand behind it, if you want to debate the merits of the position, you’ll have to argue it with him. But I’m just telling you what his argument is.”
Let me talk to Jack, and I’ll debate him. But as long as you are the one carrying water for him, then yes, the pushback will be at you, the one laying out his argument, not at some people are saying.
Depends. When I hand him a biography of Mr. Rogers and one of Manson, does he refuse to read them because he already knows better? Does he say that anything that disagrees with his preconceived notion is a lie?
At what point, if ever, in your opinion, does ignorance stop being a virtue?
In addition to @k9bfriender’s well-made points just above there’s another issue.
The RW propaganda-o-sphere is very normative. Individuals parrot complaints they’ve been told to complain about. They don’t generally in fact have personal experience with whatever they’re bitching about; they’re just repeating the buzz-phrases they’ve been told to parrot.
It’s a form of cheerleading, like the synchronized chanting people do at football game led by the pretty people jumping up & down along the sidelines. It ensures the crowd gets, and more importantly stays, emotionally invested in the game. And within that in-crowd, repeating the official buzz-phrases is a form of virtue signaling. “Yes, yes, woke moderation is the real problem we face today. Woke moderation, that’s it.” Really meaning nothing more than “I listened to Hannity today and I’m fully on his team!”
How does any of this fit the business model of media corporations? Will human mods increase revenue?
Of course I can imagine a corporate response - call center in India with humans reading scripts from computer screens.
I think it would, but it’s a question as to whether it would increase revenue more than it would cost. As most of these sites are operating at a loss as it is, it’s hard to justify further costs. I think the OP was significantly off as to what the mod/user ratio should be, and rather look to police, it seems it would make more sense to look at well moderated forums. Hey, look, here’s one right now that we are using. I don’t know how many regular active users are here, and I don’t know exactly how to count a volunteer mod against one who is paid, but the ratio is probably closer to 100 to 1 than 1000 to 1.
I see what the OP is saying, but I don’t share their doom and gloom over it. Things like the youtube algorithm are a bane to creators, so some of them went and created their own streaming platform, where they don’t worry about the algorithm or being demonetized.
In something like the case of Nebula, there are no bots to take down or demonetize videos, however it’s not a platform that just any creator can join. You have to apply and be approved by the current members of the platform. And even though there isn’t automated censorship systems, that doesn’t mean you can say or do whatever you want, as the other content creators can boot you off if they don’t want to have their content associated with yours. But it will be done by a human, not a bot.
Does the existence of Nebula mean that alt-right views will be satisfied? No, because it’s not the fact that it’s a bot doing the moderating, it’s the moderation standards themselves that they are objecting to.
So, sure, humanless moderation and its “interesting” decisions are in fact making some people turn to different platforms, but it is not what is driving people to far right ideology.
Yes.
It’s certainly not a virtue. But if someone’s outlook on life is that you should be a good neighbor, support those in need, speak out against people who try to harm others, etc. Then it’s ignorant, as well, for those viewing him to ignore how he was brought up, ignore what his views of life are, and to treat him like someone who wants to go murder people and start a race war. He is wrong and he should try to learn the reality of the world and of what was done to him but, likewise, you should be able to separate the important part - whether the guy is a danger to society or not - from the name that’s put on his belief system.
So, is posting anti-LGBTQ content a danger to society or not?
Is vaccine misinformation a danger?
Is Covid misinformation a danger?
Is election fraud misinformation a danger?
All of these things have killed people, injured people, or encouraged a mob of angry assholes to storm the nation’s capitol to prevent them from completing a recent election.
If their transgressions were simply mis-naming something, then I’d agree that we should all look at the bigger picture.
This is more like your ill-informed Manson fan starting to support Charles Manson’s actual ideas because he was the “Mr. Roger’s Neighborhood” guy. That’s the sort of stuff you have to shut the hell down, and his ignorance is no longer a defense.