Comment by eyelidlessness

As a metaphor for content moderation, there’s a clear bias to the examples, which I don’t object to per se, but there’s also a fairly large blind spot in the way the bias is presented.

Depending on interpretation, all or nearly all of the examples fall into these categories:

- Subjective categorization of restricted content, good intent

- Subjective interpretation of scope, neutral intent

- Clear intent to flout rule if subjective interpretations apply

What isn’t present in any of the examples is a case where the rule is clear but breaking the rule is intended and masked. That’s where a lot of content moderation struggles, and (because?) it’s where a lot of malicious and abusive users concentrate, and intentionally create ambiguities where there wouldn’t be any without such malicious intent.

And knowing that doesn’t make content moderation any clearer, probably the opposite, but it’s worth recognizing that that’s the point. A few clever jerks can convince well meaning people to reinforce or excuse their abuse, and can convince well meaning moderators that obvious dog whistles are hard to interpret, and then they turn rules over on themselves without any recourse.