Meta’s appropriate change means that worse things will pass through -hyper grid business
As a mediator, it can’t be more confusing than the idea of a revised social media arbitration policy that has been warned for worse things.
Recently, Mark Zuckerberg announced that Meta, a company that attacked Meta after hitting the meta, would reverse the mediation on various platforms. he is”… We will catch less bad things… ”I explicitly insisted.
You can see his presentation here.
This is especially threatening because Zuckerberg identifies bad things, including drugs, terrorism and exploitation of children. He also says that meta will eliminate restrictions on topics such as immigration and gender. I will call the back filter to reduce censorship. Oh, and he says they are finishing the facts.
This is a mess.
Arbitration is challenging. The challenge is associated with Zeitgeist, a social character of the times, which is very complicated these days. It depends on the platform. The scope of the challenge of arbitration of Facebook is Hyper Grid BusinessBut the key problem is the same. Good arbitration preserves online welfare to contributors and readers, respect for a true alternative perspective.
~ Hyper Grid Business We have a discussion guideline to indicate arbitration. Mainly, we apply the principles to contents that can cause personal harm, such as malicious ridicule and hatred speeches for specific groups or individuals.
~ Hyper Grid BusinessThe malicious ridicule, a kind of bad object, was driving out the contributors. But even more malicious ridicule would not have improved discussion. We know this because more contributors posted more opinions after the discussion guidelines removed malicious ridicule. When Zuckerberg tries to get rid of the proper restrictions on topics such as gender and immigration, we will not improve the discussion through the experience that bad things will be vulnerable and controversial groups to be malicious ridicule and hatred of a group that is vulnerable and controversial. I know it is.
The unfortunate reputation of META’s new arbitration policy is to use the expression “innocent contribution” in the introductory video presentation. He said the mediation policy of the meta platform blocked an “innocent contribution.” The word “innocent” generally conveys positive tendencies, intentions and behaviors, but Zuckerberg uses “innocent” in relation to the contributor of whether the victim is a perpetrator of malicious commentary. The chaotic use of the word “innocent” is the wrong direction of strategic shoes. Zuckerberg tries to seem to be worried while driving out all emotions.
However, Zuckerberg’s emphasis is not limited to arbitration filters. Rather, he is a laser who focuses on how Meta completely checks the third party. Zuckerberg fixes the theoretical basis for his position on the claim that the facts are too biased and make too many mistakes. He does not give an example of how the disadvantages look. Nevertheless, he has a numerical estimation of his concerns and says that META is a million people if only 1 % of the posts are incorrectly censored.
Zuckerberg actually claims that the inspectors have destroyed more trust than they created. really? Once again, there is no actual case. But like an accident experiment, is the 99 %success rate of 99 %actually relieved to readers and contributors? Of course, he proposes a random rate by writing a 1 %statement into a hypothesis that is misunderstood, so he simply makes him simply offended.
In fact, it is essential to collect and share information. If you haven’t gained the conviction of getting true, you will enter a terrible realm of lie, exaggeration, speculation, hopeful thoughts. There are many ways to distort reality.
It is fair to say that confirmation may not meet expectations. In fact, this is not always lined up and is not ready to support ideas or beliefs. It means that the facts are required to confirm the facts. The facts used in the context of misunderstandings lead to questions about reliability. New facts can replace the previous facts. Fair enough, but it is not easy to understand reality. If so, civilization will be much more developed so far.
But Zuckerberg has his clear prejudice in all of this. Meta does not exist to guarantee the best information. Meta exists to generate profits to participate in products such as Facebook. Compare this with Wikipedia, which relies on donations and provides sources of information.
Zuckerberg insists on the idea of Meta as a mediator of truth. However, meta products are designed to appeal to the entire Earth and have contributors of the entire earth. Discussions on the meta platform affect the core beliefs and actions of millions of people at a time. It is ridiculous to treat the facts as a disposable function. Individuals cannot easily check global information. The fact confirmation is not only a transparent approach for massive verification of news and information, but also an implicit responsibility for everyone or all organizations who provide global sharing.
In fact, there is no prejudice. So Zuckerberg’s actual reaction seemed to prefer political positions over others. And this is what we can expect from ethical discourse. All perspectives are not equally valid in politics or life. In fact, some perspectives are simply a wish list of ideological will. If Zuckerberg wants to solve prejudice, you should start yourself.
As mentioned, Zuckerberg seems to be uncomfortable in the spotlight of the facts. Well, I have a thought here. The meta should not decide whether it is true or not. That is the fact that the confirmation service is caring. It puts the burden of justification to the external sauce. The only thing that the meta should intervene is the contract with the facts confirmation organization for the fact confirmation. When Zuckerberg stops confirming the facts of the third party, he does not simply simply meet the meta in the potential controversy. He destroys the ground and responsibility of meta contributors. As a result, “…” We will catch less bad things… ”
Zuckerberg’s proposal instead of confirmation is to completely undermine the essential strengths of facts and instead depend on negotiations. Based on X’s Community Notes system, META allows only “approved” contributors to post in the post. But the notes they post are posted only if other “approved” contributors vote for the notes. The algorithm then further processes the ideological spectrum of all voters to determine whether the memo will be posted in the end. Undoubtedly, most users have been widely reported that they do not see the content modification regardless of the effectiveness of the contribution results. Zuckerberg insists on freedom of speech, but community notes are effective censorship to suppress the challenges of wrong information.
Obviously, it is more and more to us as an individual to obtain our understanding of the reality of the world. But you need effort and time. If our information sources are not willing to confirm the legitimacy of the information, our understanding of the world will be more absolutely less prejudice, but more. So, the next time, Zuckerberg unpleasantly speaks of his hand -off role that supports the first amendment and a prejudice -free sharing, and his actual campaign is exponentially expanded by the sea of wrong information, sacrificing the goal of malicious triangle. To be able to do it. Zuckerberg’s prejudice is to encourage more discussions. For platforms with a global reach, the goal is to help with the low mediation. Arbitration that protects you on that scale is damaged. Zuckerberg said. “… We will catch less bad things… ”
