Comment by Natsu
3 years ago
Those were done by human moderators, who Twitter said needed retraining.
But yes, this also happened on, e.g. Facebook where activists were blaming "color blind" application of the rules for flagging a lot of things as "hate speech."
> Those were done by human moderators, who Twitter said needed retraining.
Given how often Twitter has had issues with "AI" (like people getting shadow banned or blocked for posts years old coincidentally timed with PR releases about "how to combat xxx"), I don't trust that statement at all.
Twitter, Facebook/Instagram and Google/YouTube are widely known to use AI as first stage of content moderation for years (want to try it? post a picture of genitalia on Twitter, and your account will be set to NSFW in a matter of seconds, or post something with a "copyrighted" audio part on YT), and people have exploited that for just as long. We've seen various complaints about unjustified bans on all services made #1 here on HN simply because the affected people don't have any other way to contact a human support resource.
I do get that this might be necessary out of scale - if fifty people flag something for abusive content or spam, it likely is abusive content... the problem is the 1% that are the target of organized reporting/trolling campaigns, and for these people, that really really sucks.