Google Says Our Article On The Difficulty Of Good Content Moderation Is... Dangerous
from the proving-the-point dept
Back in August, I wrote a big post about the impossible choices that large internet platforms have to make concerning content moderation. A large part of the point of that post is that there is no perfect content moderation, and especially at scale, there are going to be large swaths of people who disagree with any choice (leaving content up, taking it down, demonetizing it, putting a flag on it, whatever). And expecting these platforms to magically get things right is going to end in serious disappointment for everyone.
In its own hamfisted way, Google has now proven that point (and, no, they're not doing this on purpose). About a month after that post went up, we got a notification from Google, telling us that this article violated Google's AdSense policies (we use AdSense to backfill ads when we don't have a better solution -- it pays us close to nothing) and therefore they were restricting AdSense from appearing on that page. The only details we received were that it was "dangerous or derogatory."
If you can't see that, it says that our link is "dangerous or derogatory" in that it:
- Threatens or advocates for harm of oneself or others;
- Harasses, intimidates or bullies an individual or group of individuals;
- Incites hatred against, promotes discrimination of, or disparages an individual or group on the basis of their race or ethnic origin, religion, disability, age, nationality, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or other characteristic that is associated with systemic discrimination or marginalization.
As you can see, at the bottom there's a button to "request a review." We did that, and the next day were told that they had lifted the restriction. This surprised us, as the "review" button usually does nothing. Fast forward to this past weekend, and we get another notice... on the same article, again saying that it is "dangerous or derogatory." No further explanation. No recognition that we already went through this.
We asked for a review again... and got the following:
If you can't read that, it says:
1 page was reviewed at your request and found to be non-compliant with our policies at the time of the review. Ad serving continues to be restricted or disabled on this page.
There appears to be no further information. We are told that the only thing we can do is "fix any violations." But they won't tell us what the "violations" are (because there aren't any) or how to "fix" them. And, seriously, fuck that. There's nothing to "fix" and it's our general policy -- and the policy of any good journalism site not to allow advertisers to dictate anything having to do with content. And we're sticking by that.
Now, to be clear: Google has every right to make whatever awful decisions it wants to make about where its ads appear. If it really wants to demonetize our article highlighting the impossible choices that Google and others have to make, well, that's quite ironic, but that's on them. I certainly don't think this was a "choice" that Google made. I think that it is likely constantly scanning all pages that use AdSense for "flag" words, and maybe something like the curses (or the mention of Alex Jones or the holocaust?) flagged the article for review. At that point, I'm guessing it was handed off to some low-paid individual tasked with "reviewing" content policy violations, who has somewhere between 5 and 30 seconds to make a judgment call. That person maybe sees the curses and says "BAD!". When we click "review" it probably goes to another person like that. The first time we asked for a review we got someone who voted one way, and the other time... the other way.
It's a marginal pain for us, though it's more amusing than anything else (though, hey, if you'd like to help cover our losses from having that page demonetized, go for it!). But, again, all it really serves to do is highlight the point that these all come down to judgment calls, and you can't really scale judgment calls to the level that these platforms operate on without making a whole bunch that are highly questionable.
We shouldn't want giant platforms with a bunch of "content moderators" determining what is acceptable content and what is "dangerous and derogatory," because they're going to do a shitty job of it (now watch this post get demonetized too...). It really is time to search for better solutions.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: content moderation, dangerous, demonetization
Companies: google
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Re: Re: Re: It's Techdirt intent the "report" button be mis-used.
You don't know what common law is.You don't know how CDA 230 works.
You don't know what free speech is.
Do you know anything?
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Remember:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Remember:
Don't be evil
Don't be too evil
Don't be as evil as others
be evil
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Remember:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Looking at it the wrong way
Clearly Google is trying to do you a favor here and prove the point you raised regarding moderation at scale by providing a perfect example of why it doesn't work.
Exact same article, two completely different decisions on it, one saying it's good(after flagging it), one saying it's bad(after it got flagged again).
They're just trying to help really.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Looking at it the wrong way
Duh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dangerous
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I bet next time you go to use words like "holocaust" you will hesitate for a moment.
No doubt many will just change their words to comply.
It might help if Google was transparent about what the logic is. Developers may even be able to help them improve it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Assuming Mike is telling the truth about the level of revenue paid by AdSense (and I've never seen any proven reason to doubt it), probably not. It's a shame if some do, but then again it's a shame that such people give up so easily and/or made themselves so dependent on a single ad source.
"It might help if Google was transparent about what the logic is"
The logic is presumably a lot of things get flagged that use terms like Alex Jones and holocaust in a context that actually *is* offensive or unacceptable, and their automated tools are not yet smart enough to take into account full context before flagging. That combined with the way the system is set up to try and hold them directly responsible for things other people wrote means that they sometimes err too far on the side of caution.
There's really no more to it than that, as far as I'm aware.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
By that point, depending on societal development, it might well be considered cruel and unusual to subject a sapient being to the type of work the automated tools are subjected to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Fuck ggl ... satellites they put into space. fuck them.
Is anyone else picturing G'gl exploring the universe, indexing galaxies, and returning to Earth in 250 years to eradicate biological infestations and merge with the Creator?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I welcome our Borg whoops google overload
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google Overload
I...know...everything...IT'S SO BEAUTIFUL! BEU--TI--FULL
<CHAK-THOOM>
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In the interest of transparency...
Google should be willing to explain what algorithms flagged review, and what the review guidelines were that compelled a human being to uphold the flag.
That they don't, in this day and age of profuse mediatory inconsistency, implies that their system is arbitrary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: In the interest of transparency...
We are told that the only thing we can do is "fix any violations." But they won't tell us what the "violations" are...
If reviewers don't have the time to (at minimum) C&P the flag-inducing content, the content shouldn't be flagged... or Google shouldn't even be bothering with the "human" part of the process in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: In the interest of transparency...
That said, the human review should be able to like, highlight the concerning portion before upholding the flag.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: In the interest of transparency...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Similar Thing Happened To Me
At first I thought it was a video I had embedded that used footage from the justice League trailer, but nope. That wasn't it. I had no opportunity to talk to a real person. I posted on the Google Ad forum to get some advice there, but the people there just commented on the low quality content that took up a majority of blog space.
After nearly a week of looking at this and trying different things, I found out that Google flagged the links in my Podcast articles that pointed to an MP3 download of the podcast. These were MP3s of the podcast I run that Google claimed were infringing copyright. Only after removing all those links did Google finally reinstate ads on my site.
Not that losing the ads was that big of a deal. I have only made $40ish in the entire time I have used Google Ads and still can't get paid because the hold all earnings hostage until you make at least $100.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There are ways to monetie content without Google, and It's still better to run an ad cost-free on YouTube than it is to have to pay for advertising time on some tv channel or whatever. Much more sustainable.
I still think Twitter is the most extreme of the censors, Facebook about the norm, and Google about as liberal as a company can be while still moderating.
Moderation at scale is doable, though it might not be profitable for the automated-UGC model that "built the internet." We can REBUILD an internet with better moderation and more jobs to meet the more hands-on needs created by proper moderation. "Safety is too expensive" isn't really a valid concern, and most of the anti-moderation arguments I've seen seem to boil down to this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Scale
Moderation at scale is doable, though it might not be profitable for the automated-UGC model that "built the internet." We can REBUILD an internet with better moderation and more jobs to meet the more hands-on needs created by proper moderation. "Safety is too expensive" isn't really a valid concern, and most of the anti-moderation arguments I've seen seem to boil down to this.
Of course by "Too Expensive" we mean Google would need to hire half the world's population to monitor the other half.
And with that many human beings all moderating - The magical consistency of policy that people want is impossible. If Google had tens of thousands of human moderators to check this stuff out, how would they ever be able to get them to make snap decisions that were 100% consistent?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Explain how it can be done, and how it can be kept consistent; otherwise you are making grand claims without any support.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Not because Link Portals, which continued to exist for quite some time (ex. Digg), were unable to fulfill a sustainable niche that was separate from search, or because such sites failed to find a sustainable business model, but because SEC 230 and the DMCA means google can do whatever and so Link Portals can't exist.
Given this I expect he just assumes he can have google money (which comes from a seperate business), and did a lot of low ball calculations and thinks that as long as he sticks to his link portal and abandons all those side projects that keep people involved in google he can make it work. He doesn't understand the totality of the business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nope.
As long as a website gives the power to its reading public to control my content means I won't financially support the website.
This isn't a censorship issue. It's a "public opinion" issue.
*I* determine who's an asshole, not the thin-skinned users who gleefully click the "report" button because they don't like what someone else has to say.
Fix the website so THEIR content is hidden and leave mine alone.
Until this is fixed, no financial support.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So, what you're saying is, everybody else is the asshole, but you're a perfect unblemished angel.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No, what the now censored AC said is what said.
This "Ac" perfectly examples WHY the AC complained. Just paraphrasing and gainsaying ad hom, all the fanboys have.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: No, what the now censored AC bawked
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Support
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Those who clicked the "report" button also determined for themselves who's the asshole but it seems you believe you are the better asshole-discriminator.
Maybe google should hire you as a reviewer so we get less asshole posts showing up on the internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's Techdirt intent the "report" button be mis-used.
The first AC right complains of:
Then the thin-skinned users who gleefully click the "report" button because they don't like what someone else has to say jump on and prove it, with ad hom and censoring the comment.
"Moderation" is to remove comments which are outside of common law. Nothing the first AC said gets anywhere near that. Instead, the "report" button is weaponized here at Techdirt -- with the knowing and acceptance by Masnick -- sheerly to prevent ANY other opinion. Masnick is still treating this as though an old-fashioned print magazine where he has full editorial control, instead of embracing the Internet where users get to publish: the site is ONLY the mechanical means for The Public to use. Masnick invites us in with "free speech", and only afterwards reveals the trick that the site is only for speech he approves off. Techdirt / Masnick thereby GIVE UP shield of liability under CDA 230 for comments. -- And a case WILL come up where that's exactly the issue.
But in the meantime, fanboy-trolls have the advantage.
No one reasonable (just arriving IF ANY) should comment here: it's not a fair field for Free Speech. One should also be aware that most of the commentors not only defend the site but have EXACTLY the site's views, so much that has to be astro-turfing, it's so uniformly (leftist corporatist Globalist) views compared to other tech sites that it's startling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It's Techdirt!
We are all strong believers of common law here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It's Techdirt intent the "report" button be mis-used.
No, moderation here on TD is to hide comments for whatever reasons those with the ability to do so choose to click that little red flag. Common law has absolutely nothing to do with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It's Techdirt intent the "report" button be mis-used.
You don't know how CDA 230 works.
You don't know what free speech is.
Do you know anything?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Good news! None of your comments are being removed, which by your definition means their actions are neither moderation nor illegal!
"it's so uniformly (leftist corporatist Globalist) views compared to other tech sites that it's startling."
Funny. Most of the other tech sites I visit (Are Technica, The Register, Slashdot to name but a few) would have also downvoted your bullshit to oblivion, many of them having deleted the comments entirely and/or blocked you from posting by now.
Yet, here you are, free to sully the site with your ramblings. I guess that means that you support the "leftist" way the site is run, letting you post even when you're being told to shut the hell up. Welcome to the left!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It's Techdirt intent the "report" button be mis-used.
You can gnash your teeth and wail all you want about how unfairly your are treated but until the moment you actually can present a coherent argument without accusing everyone else of being pirates, astro-turfers, assholes, masnick fanboys etc that will not change.
Anyone with an iota of EQ and learning ability will understand this.
I don't always agree with Masnick's conclusions, but he usually presents his reasoning behind them. You on the other hand always come out swinging saying that anyone not disagreeing with Masnick is a <derogatory term of choice here>.
In essence, you are a one man conspiracy nut where the conspiracy is that Techdirt is out to silence you. Because only a nut would came back, again and again and get trashed. Either that or you are a sucker for punishments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Show me the law that says comments "inside" of common law cannot be removed by moderators.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Common Law
Show me the law that says comments "inside" of common law cannot be removed by moderators.
I can't presume to speak for Blue - however I think he means "illegal." So links to kiddie porn or true threats?
However, his woeful excuse for a philosophy would make deleting all advertising spam impossible. And he has never explained how that will work in his world. (Or, you know, pointed ut to any website that proves his dogma.)
He also needs a new dictionary since he doesn't understand Common Law:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law
Law, based upon precedent and decisions by judges.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Common Law
I think that the use who keeps harping on Common Law is a troll, since someone who was genuinely that passionate about it let slip at least a few hints as to what it is beyond "the foundation of American Law", "that which the TD commentariat is ignorant of", etc
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Common Law
I object to his misuse of the English language and his general ass-hat trolling. Every time I hit the little flag, that proves the Mike has power over him and he hates that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Common Law
It's Blue, 'troll' would be a vast understatement, and almost certainly be giving them far more benefit of the doubt than they deserve.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It's Techdirt intent the
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It's Techdirt intent the "report" button be mis-used.
I mean, several people are conversing with you on the basis of your "hidden" post.
So how have you been censored? How has your speech been moderated out of the discussion? How has, at least to your tiny mind, your comment been "removed"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Oct 24th, 2018 @ 11:45am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If you go into a room of a hundred people, and one of them is an asshole, then that guy's an asshole.
If you go into a room of a hundred people, and ninety-nine of them are assholes, you're probably the asshole.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Seems to be working really well for you, genius.
*clicks report*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Huh. Change a few words and you're justifying how you love to pirate movies. Weird. Almost as if there's a moral equivalence between you refusing to pay for your entertainment here and people refusing to pay for their entertainment elsewhere...
"This isn't a censorship issue. It's a "public opinion" issue."
The public's opinion says you're an asshole, and they'd rather not read your freeloading bullshit. Deal with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
/s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Oct 24th, 2018 @ 12:00pm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Oct 24th, 2018 @ 12:00pm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Always the Google shill
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In no particular order...
Piss off and fuck you said the Furor
Alex Jones strongly advised the Jewish to deny the Holocaust
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: In no particular order...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Editing, opinion, balance, Open mindedness..
Is to LEARN SELF..and to UNDERSTAND OTHERS..
Its like the job of being a Psychologist or analyst..
HOW not to insert your Own bias into helping others..
Trying to get humans to be balanced and fair, ISNT EASY..
Using Automated services to WATCH for Language and certain key words is a BITCH..
This is like the RECENT TV industry, saying those 7 certain rules for words..IF used in a certain way, you CAN USE THEM, but NOT as a description of sex and Gross things they are related to..
Want to go back to the Brady Bunch?? or have abit MORE expression in your comments?
If you give us an EMAIL, to send to G' we can contest it..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Editing, opinion, balance, Open mindedness..
I see your rant and raise you a borogrove
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is how everything coming out of the 2016 election cycle has felt. I've read and reread my own comments a bunch of times, usually persuasive aimed at addition of some key issue important to me to the Democrat platform, then watch the explosion of distortion, lies, and labels repeatedly.
The whole this is quite bizarre.
Then you begin to notice other groups receiving the brunt of distortion, lies, and labels and realize topics such as the Nazi moral panic are matters of intense demand without available supply to meet it.
Happy to see Mike becoming grounded again. I've criticized some positions that looked carried off with the frenzied tide over the last year. Hoping to see some clarity coming out of the new found footing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
you're just not trusting the system hard enough
Say it with me:
man is not perfect
man-built software is not perfect
man-built machinery is not perfect
(repeat)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: you're just not trusting the system hard enough
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: you're just not trusting the system hard enough
You can be the first on on that (human) pilot-less NY to LA flight, then. Heck, you can even sit up front.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: you're just not trusting the system hard enough
Why insurance?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That sounds familiar...
If men were angels, no government would be necessary.
If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.
In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: you're just not trusting the system hard enough
Keep making advances, but don't put all of your eggs in 1 basket (be it compterization, connectivity, etc.) Self driving with optional, anytime human override > self driving without human override (not even a steering wheel? really?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: you're just not trusting the system hard enough
As has been demonstrated by cars with various driver assistance technologies, humans are very bad at monitoring machines, and reacting in time to save themselves. Either give the human control or give the machine control, but do not sort of give the machine control, while expecting the human to correct its mistakes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Remember:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
leftists attacking each other...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: leftists attacking each other...
Am I to understand, Anonymous Coward that you're interpreting Google's flagging of a TechDirt article as leftists attacking each other?
That's pretty tinfoil-hat. It's got to be parody. Poe pH factor 0.07
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: leftists attacking each other...
A person on the right considering that the 2 arguments are leftist..
I would wonder if this person found another person with 3 arms? 4 arms??
Which side would he be??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: leftists attacking each other...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: leftists attacking each other...
And the Religious Right, not understanding that Religious based Nations have a REAL hard time..(Similar to the Muslims ideals.)
And the idea that Christ WASNT political, and wasnt a Radical is beyond Comprehension. he lived the life he was given. And others MADE HIM a political statement.
How many understand that the Basis for MOST religions is communism and Socialism??
And watching the Right, run around screaming those words makes me Laugh..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hey it’s not my call
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Its alot easier to block articles for a large
tech giant like google than risk showing risky content
in certain countrys.
When the new rules for the eu, article 13 etc come into force
it,ll be 1000 times worse as no filter
can tell parody or fair use or public domain material from material that might be infringing on someone,s copyright .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's just bad programming. But I've come to expect that from Google.
Of course, it's possible that's not what happened. Maybe it found another reason to object to your article the second time. But we'll never know, because Google's automated censorship is as transparent as a vat of carbon black.
So, apparently, is their manual censorship.
But I've come to expect that from Google as well.
"We don't care. We don't have to. We're the phone company."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Given those very vague guidelines...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's complaining about the comments section
If I could send one line of text to everyone in the world, it would be "Let's all calm down a little".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's complaining about the comments section
Cheers :D
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
AI is more artificial than it is intelligent
That way, the algorithm can adjust the relative weighting on its 'rule' (now that has received such a prod in the presumably correct direction).
It isn't a sensible question to ask 'how' did the software decide Mike's article violated Google's policy. The answer is always: It's judges on a balance of probability, based on all prior inputs. If you asked to know the 'rules' and their 'relative weighting' then you are surely treeing up the wrong bark (which is to say: getting it backwards). The rules are tweeked based on the feedback loop.
The better question then is not 'can you explain how it works' (nobody can: it's not a static algorithm, it's ever evolving in unknown directions, too complex for Google's programmers to keep up).
Their question is: Does it work BETTER than it did? And the answer is presumably yes*
*For a very specific definition of "better" that only Google's AI programmers would ever know. Perhaps ask them that. How does that algorithm decide it has found an improvement to achieving its goal. And bottom line: how does it define its goal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Deliberate
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Deliberate
Google is providing a service - cheap ads across a wide range.
Google doesn't care if a few (million) ad hits are blocked if it receives less complaints from the customers.
The *customers* are the folks paying for the ads. They want nothing but their ads placed and don't give a shit about ideology. They don't want their ads on hate group pages, or pron pages. They want nice, safe, disney level webpages.
Nasty keywords on the page? Plenty more pages to advertise on.
Google, as a business, has zero incentive to make their algorithm better. Or more transparent.
In fact, they *don't* want a transparent algorithm because that is easier to cheat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Easier to cheat"
I think an open algorithm would, in the long term, result in a better algorithm. Sure, there may be early cheats, but then those exploits will be closed.
Granted, hate speech can still be coded as dog whistles, but that's the case anyway.
Curiously, the reverse has shown to be also a problem, where gay-hate ads have been reported to be commonly viewed with gay-topic youtube videos.
So far, Google hasn't shown any effort to address that problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Easier to cheat"
So far, Google hasn't shown any effort to address that problem.
Sure, they haven't solved the problem. Try try, sorta, when they feel like it.
But why should Google care one way of the other?
Youtube is there to generate hits, not spread philosophy or enlightenment. Addwords are there to sell ads.
If the clicks come, then it is still "Working."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And only yesterday, I watched something about the new movie, The Cleaners.
I highly recommend the Cleaners. A really excellent documentary...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Poke the Bear
"...now watch this post get demonetized too..."
Fortunate for TD that AdSense is such a marginal player in TD's revenue game. Please keep poking the bear and sharing the cute, little displays of foolish faux fierceness the pokee's cubs exhibit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
On most forums, many have an option titled "Ignore". This option allows me to determine if a person's posts get to the point I no longer want to view them *without* modifying the view of any other reader on the forum (this is a critical part of the point!).
Techdirt decides to take this option one step further by giving some of you fucktards the ability to "report" a post, which then compiles a tally that, once met, blocks said content from view of *everyone*.
No, it doesn't remove the comment, but that's not the point.
Techdirt gets to sit back and gleefully claim they don't moderate the site because they allow fucktards to do it for them.
How you idiots managed to miss this point proves many of you should have the option to judge *any* post removed from your arsenal of abuse.
Now, here's where most of you are going to see a plot twist: despite having the option of "Ignore", I don't use it.
I have *never* reported any post on this (or other) site, despite some of you saying the most stupid thing possible to insult human intelligence.
I *have* used options to let some authors know their post was funny or insightful. Consider it a "thank you", where rather than having your post hidden, it has the potential of being "rewarded" in the weekly appreciation article which comes out on Sunday.
Hmm. Maybe Techdirt should alter the Sunday post and display the "Most abused (reported) Post of the Week."
Not hidden, of course.
Now that you've read the point, feel free to regurgitate every possible defense to justify your abusive actions while I sit back and gleefully relish in your ignorant hypocrisy.
Or... perhaps stop being a fucktard?
Block your own damn posts. Leave mine alone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
...and I bet lots of people use it regularly when you write.
In fact, I wouldn't mind you naming some of them, so that I don't accidentally visit sites that put up with your level of nonsense without taking steps to warn the wider community that there's trolling afoot,
"Or... perhaps stop being a fucktard?"
We *do* keep asking you to do this, yet you persist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's great for actual spam and abuse - I would rather not read the responses that say "Great blog, keep up the good work" with some link to penis pills or whatever it is. But it should not be used to hide comments that are merely stupid or ill informed. Those can be best dealt with by replies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Actions have consequences
To an extent I'd agree, however when it comes to certain regulars(who are easy enough to spot even when they don't comment under a name) I expect people got tired of wasting their time writing responses that were ignored as though they hadn't even been written at all.
Responding to someone that's merely stupid and/or ill informed is one thing, but trying to have a conversation with someone who has demonstrated time and time again that they have no interest in an honest conversation, and are merely commenting to piss people off, beat up strawmen and/or stroke their egos is not likely to be that attractive a proposition to most, and as such those with a reputation for that sort of behavior can find themselves in the position where people have lost all patience and just flag anything they write.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Actions have consequences
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'Who replaced my TD comment section with YT's?'
As I'm pretty sure that you've been around long enough to see the joy that is 'Hamilton', they should serve as an example of why that wouldn't work so well. For a while they they were writing gorram novels in the comment section, such that 'just ignore it' would have left all that to fill the comment section, making it more difficult for people to find the actual honest discussions, forced to scroll down, and down, and down, and down, rather than just having it all collapsed into single line form.
'Just ignore it' would also let the more... creative types fill the comment section with their various flavors of prose, leaving the place much more toxic as people had to wade through the cavalcades of insults, arrogance, arrogance and insults, and gross dishonesty that seems to flow from certain individuals who frequent the place, rather than having all that delightful content hidden behind a single click of the mouse should someone feel masochistic enough.
If people want to deal with the sort of content that gets flagged, then they can easily do so with a simple click of the mouse. If they don't, then they don't have to. The report button might get a little overused at times but at the same time you don't have to stick around here very long to see that without it the comment section would be much, much worse to wade through.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
There's a number of ways around this, but the most effective ones - force logins, scroll past the trolls without reacting - have either been rejected by Techdirt in very well argued terms or are impossible due to human nature.
"Those can be best dealt with by replies."
Except, as we're often reminded, this merely feeds the trolls. Then people start whining about people responding to obvious trolls. And so on..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
As I'm fairly sure you're the same person who raised this issue before a while back, I'll merely repeat the response I left back then for you:
If you want a system where people can 'ignore' certain users, this would also require that all those who wanted to leave comments would create and account and only post under that account.
As you are currently not doing so, and in fact you're not even commenting under a name at all, the question then becomes 'would you be willing to create an account and only ever post under that account in order to allow your idea to work, or are you just trying yet again to insist that people stop flagging your comments?'
(If you can't figure out why people might be flagging your comments, just re-read your own comment. If you still can't figure it out I don't think anything I could say could clue you in).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Since it seems my comment has generated some wonderful replies, it looks like I'm going to have to teach a few idiots why I have an issue.
Just to clarify: I'm pretty sure the reason people report comments like this one is your attitude, which kicks off with you first calling everyone else "idiots" and then acting as if only you are so smart that you have to teach everyone else. That attitude is obnoxious and pedantic and people click report because of that.
On most forums, many have an option titled "Ignore". This option allows me to determine if a person's posts get to the point I no longer want to view them without modifying the view of any other reader on the forum (this is a critical part of the point!).
Techdirt decides to take this option one step further by giving some of you fucktards the ability to "report" a post, which then compiles a tally that, once met, blocks said content from view of everyone.
On most forums, if people click "report" enough, the comment is deleted entirely and often the users are banned. We don't do that. We feel our version is much more conducive to useful conversation. The fact that people report your comments is also a sign to new people who are arriving in the conversation that your comments are not a valuable contribution, and if they don't have the time or inclination, they can more easily pass over them.
That, we believe, is a perfectly reasonable and useful approach -- much better than most forums which just silently delete such comments.
No, it doesn't remove the comment, but that's not the point.
It kinda is the point, though.
Techdirt gets to sit back and gleefully claim they don't moderate the site because they allow fucktards to do it for them.
Again, the use of the word "fucktards" here, suggests an attitude that the community appears to feel is condescending and obnoxious, and I'd likely agree. Secondly, we don't "gleefully" claim anything. We accurately denote how our moderation system works in a way that we feel creates a pretty good overall commenting environment that includes useful incentives and signals. We try to incentivize good behavior and disincentivize bad behavior. We know we have trolls, but I feel we actually give them a lot more room to speak their mind that nearly any other site.
How you idiots managed to miss this point proves many of you should have the option to judge any post removed from your arsenal of abuse.
Again, consider the tone of the above statement and what you are saying here. You are again acting as if only you are brilliant, and anyone who doesn't understand your brilliance is an idiot. Lots of people, rightly, find that makes you an asshole. And thus, they report.
It is possible to disagree with people without being disagreeable, and to make points and present facts and arguments with logic.
You don't do that. You insult. You lie. You attack. You misrepresent.
People are sick of that, and they show that to you -- in some cases -- by using the report button, and in other cases by actually trying to engage with you. And when they do you resort to calling them all idiots. That only contributes to the cycle, because the people who tried to engage with you discover quickly that you refuse to engage in any manner other than ad hominem attacks, insults and lies.
You have dug your own grave.
I have never reported any post on this (or other) site, despite some of you saying the most stupid thing possible to insult human intelligence.
Good for you. Many people don't use it. Many people do. I'm not sure what point you think you're making here (though, again you immediately resort to ad hom attacks and insults).
I have used options to let some authors know their post was funny or insightful. Consider it a "thank you", where rather than having your post hidden, it has the potential of being "rewarded" in the weekly appreciation article which comes out on Sunday.
Right. This is what I mean when I talk about positive incentives.
Hmm. Maybe Techdirt should alter the Sunday post and display the "Most abused (reported) Post of the Week."
This has been requested multiple times, but we have rejected this for the fairly obvious reason that we don't wish to incentivise bad behavior in any manner, and highlighting such a comment at the end of the week likely would do exactly that.
Now that you've read the point, feel free to regurgitate every possible defense to justify your abusive actions while I sit back and gleefully relish in your ignorant hypocrisy.
Once again, I would point to your positioning here, where you again assume the position that only you are so brilliant, and everyone else is ignorant. It is that attitude and utter nonsense that gets you reported.
Or... perhaps stop being a fucktard?
Same as above.
Block your own damn posts. Leave mine alone.
Build your own damn site and create your own rules. Don't tell me how to run mine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I do not disagree. My tone is intentional.
"On most forums, if people click "report" enough, the comment is deleted entirely and often the users are banned. We don't do that. We feel our version is much more conducive to useful conversation. The fact that people report your comments is also a sign to new people who are arriving in the conversation that your comments are not a valuable contribution, and if they don't have the time or inclination, they can more easily pass over them."
Can't agree to this. On most forums, posts are removed by moderators.
Okay, I'll accept your reasoning, now re-read this article. Google just did the same to your article, but you're calling them out for it.
*sigh*
"That, we believe, is a perfectly reasonable and useful approach -- much better than most forums which just silently delete such comments."
I'll get to this in a moment.
"It kinda is the point, though."
I know you think it's the point, but it's not.
"Again, the use of the word "fucktards" here, suggests an attitude that the community appears to feel is condescending and obnoxious, and I'd likely agree. Secondly, we don't "gleefully" claim anything. We accurately denote how our moderation system works in a way that we feel creates a pretty good overall commenting environment that includes useful incentives and signals. We try to incentivize good behavior and disincentivize bad behavior. We know we have trolls, but I feel we actually give them a lot more room to speak their mind that nearly any other site."
I stopped reading at "We accurately denote how our moderation system works". That's gleefully claiming.
"Again, consider the tone of the above statement and what you are saying here. You are again acting as if only you are brilliant, and anyone who doesn't understand your brilliance is an idiot. Lots of people, rightly, find that makes you an asshole. And thus, they report."
As a reminder, the retort reply was intentionally vulgar as I wanted to see how many people would report my *second* post, but leave the first alone.
I will admit I'm rather surprised neither were hidden.
Unless IP addresses are compared to prevent hides of self-applied posts?
"It is possible to disagree with people without being disagreeable, and to make points and present facts and arguments with logic."
Keep this in mind, please. ;)
"You don't do that. You insult. You lie. You attack. You misrepresent."
I'll take 2 of the 4. I do not lie. I do not misrepresent. Well, okay, I did misrepresent my attitude, but as I said, that was intentional.
"People are sick of that, and they show that to you -- in some cases -- by using the report button, and in other cases by actually trying to engage with you. And when they do you resort to calling them all idiots. That only contributes to the cycle, because the people who tried to engage with you discover quickly that you refuse to engage in any manner other than ad hominem attacks, insults and lies."
This is where I find the problem of "agreeing to disagree".
The issue I have isn't giving someone the ability to report threads. I feel my point is lost in that:
TECHDIRT'S OPTION IS GIVING PEOPLE TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF EVERYONE ELSE.
This is unacceptable to me, and the second Techdirt initiated the feature on the site, I stopped supporting it.
What Techdirt has allowed is mob mentality. If the mob doesn't like a post, ANY POST, the mob will report it and it gets hidden.
This opens up, as Techdirt often reports, the "can of worms" the system will be abused over and over.
And it's true. One poster on this site, in particular, has their posts hidden almost instantly.
If you think this is acceptable, we'll never agree.
"You have dug your own grave."
Nope. I have my real account. ;) I stayed anonymous for a reason.
"Good for you. Many people don't use it. Many people do. I'm not sure what point you think you're making here (though, again you immediately resort to ad hom attacks and insults)."
My point is I stand by my position that with such tools, I do not judge for anyone else the content they should have access to (hidden/removed, doesn't matter).
"Right. This is what I mean when I talk about positive incentives."
I know of your incentives. I have made many of the "top 10" lists in the past, including one where I took #1 for the month I wrote the comment and the entire year.
Surprised?
Now stop and ask yourself what do you think would happen to that account if I were to announce it to the rest of everyone.
Yep. Mob mentality would shut it down regardless how it presented itself in the past.
"This has been requested multiple times, but we have rejected this for the fairly obvious reason that we don't wish to incentivise bad behavior in any manner, and highlighting such a comment at the end of the week likely would do exactly that."
Seriously? I was being facetious!
"Build your own damn site and create your own rules. Don't tell me how to run mine."
I'm not telling you how to run your site. I'm telling people who are posting their hypocrisy to stop challenging a feature Google is using, which hurts Techdirt financially, while intentionally abusing a very similar system.
I made my vote matter when this idiotic system was implemented. As long as it exists, I don't support the site financially.
This isn't a threat or a demand.
As a veteran, I find it disgusting people/companies think they can abuse the rights of others by putting the power of silence in the hands of a few.
As I said: no one on this site should have the power to hide comments from anyone but themselves.
Since this is clearly a difficult premise to understand, I'll just continue to click "Unhide", since it's clearly too difficult to expand posts, but not auto-expand hidden comments.
I won't berate the subject any further now and in the future.
I promise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
out_of_the_blue has a fan boy.
What's next? Are you donating to Shiva Ayyadurai?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Really? If so, it has to be the most reserved glee I've ever seen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Comments are a study in how some folks never learned to fail and loud fussing is the same as conversation.
Just my too tired of faulty reasoning everywhere.
OPINION ALERT
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So basically...
Enjoy your new Ministry of Truth, Google Edition
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Last Word
“Comments are a study in how some folks never learned to fail and loud fussing is the same as conversation.
Just my too tired of faulty reasoning everywhere.
OPINION ALERT