SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
A new social network, Candid, will use machine learning to try and moderate posts:
We use a deep learning NLP (Natural Language Processing) algorithm, which basically looks at what you're saying and decides ... whether it's positive or negative. So it kind of classifies things as having a negative sentiment or a positive sentiment. It then gives it a score of how kind of strong your statement is — let's say you said something about someone or you threatened someone, it classifies that as saying, "Hey this is a very strong statement," because these kinds of categories are not good in terms of social discourse. And when we do that, we basically say if this thing has a score which is more than a particular level, a cut-off, then we basically take out the whole post. So whether it's self harm or like bullying or harassment, we look for certain phrases and the context of those phrases.
On the line between moderation and censorship
I mean, here is the thing between what is "loud free speech," quote-unquote, right? At some level you should be able to say what you want to say, but on another level, you also want to facilitate, you know, what I would say constructive social discussion. ... There is a kind of a trade-off or a fine line that you need to walk, because if you let everything in, you know the fear is that social discussion stops and it just becomes a name-calling game. And that's what happens if you just leave — like certain discussions, just let them be, don't pull things down — you will see they quickly devolve into people calling each other names and not having any kind of constructive conversations.
They've succeeded in getting some free press, if nothing else.
(Score: 2) by vux984 on Tuesday August 02 2016, @10:26PM
This system is perfectly designed to create the most milquetoast, banal, uninteresting, discussions possible. You cannot have free expression worthy of the name without conflict.
I've had many, many thought provoking, interesting, enlightening discussions on all range of topics in spaces where social conventions and norms required a certain level of polite civility. At work. At university. Around the dinner table... the list goes on.
I'd also suggest perhaps taking a look at the rules of order in for example Canadian parliament (no props, all arguments must be directed at the Speaker, no causing disorder, dress codes, you must stand in your place, etc...) these exist to specifically to ensure that diverse speakers who disagree vehemently can still have a smooth, orderly and fairly conducted discussion. Avoiding conflict is not the goal. It helps avoiding things devolving into chaos etc.
I reject your these that 'maximum free expression' is required to have an interesting discussion. And if the internet has proven anything its that maximum free expression typically derails them into banal base noise.
Having said that, I don't much care for 'candid' either.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday August 03 2016, @01:09AM
That only works if the people in charge of adjudicating the rules are impartial. This is almost never the case.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by vux984 on Wednesday August 03 2016, @01:18AM
This is almost never the case.
In my experience for actual live conversations/debates/etc they generally are. (perhaps not impartial, but sufficiently dedicated to behaving impartially so as not to matter) And in informal settings where societal social norms are all that are in effect to regular discussion, again it seems to work pretty well.
Web forum moderators, etc, yeah, not so much. And this is why i don't think 'candid' really has much hope... it appears like its going to be managed by the same people who would moderate poorly. Automating bad moderation is still bad moderation.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 03 2016, @08:04AM
Yeah, because enforcing your subjective standards of clothing really helps to ensure smooth, orderly, and fairly conducted discussion (which is itself subjective). It's more shallow than anything else.
And if the internet has proven anything its that maximum free expression typically derails them into banal base noise.
The Internet has made more people show their true colors than you can imagine. When you have these "smooth, orderly" discussions without anonymity, what you are seeing are people's facades. With anonymity, you can catch a glimpse of someone's true self, and they can explore ideas that might otherwise cause their reputations to be destroyed within their communities (unpopular opinions about how to handle sex offenders, child porn, race, religion, etc.). That is why, for me, it is much more entertaining than the boring facade of real life, where shallowness reigns supreme (as you demonstrated with your dress code example).