MetaFilter: a bad, cowardly move
posted by Klipspringer at 7:56 AM on January 7

sir, this is a MetaFilter

the Meta moderation post is just upstairs
posted by chavenet at 8:02 AM on January 7 [3 favorites]

This is a great initiative, I'm all for it.

Metafilter is "lucky" in its relatively small size. Moderation at the scale of Facebook and Twitter is an incredible challenge.

They have the money and resources to do it, but good moderation is labour intensive and often seen as an net negative to "engagement/time on platform" in the short term at least. Strong emotions, especially negative ones, drive "engagement" and get people to return, and those impressions and returning visitors are what you sell to advertisers. If you start banning the most active people and encourage fewer, calmer, more positive interactions, the overall numbers will be smaller, even if they are more sustainable in the long term. It's a competition for attention, and shareholders and platform owners don't tend to care about the impact on individuals or society, as long as it doesn't get in the way of making more money somehow.

I know "I blame capitalism" is a cliche at this point, but, y'know, *gestures broadly at the whole situation*
posted by slimepuppy at 8:27 AM on January 7 [3 favorites]

[This comment is not MetaFilter related.]

While it's true outrage seems to drive some platforms (more on this in a bit), there are and have been highly successful platforms that increase engagement without that. Instagram is not controversy-free, but it basically is pretty/aspirational/funny/pseudo-educational content and represents 41% of Meta's profits. The sharing and collaboration tools are pretty deliberately designed. The big "Instagram insult" is mostly unfollowing (and sometimes setting commenters on people.)

An example that didn't quite make it, but was really successful for a while is also Pinterest.

Of course both those platforms are highly commercialized and sell product - they are absolutely capitalism-driven endeavours and don't get me started on the environmental costs of unboxing culture. But I also think they are really strong markers of how people can connect with each other without having to get fighty.

You do have to encourage that people can share what they are passionate about, which comes with a certain amount of opinion and friction for sure.

On the outrage front - one of the interesting results of the Facebook news ban in Canada is that it's left big holes where people used to go to FB for information. My own FB feed is now about 50% dog-related, 40% family and community related, and 10% other.

This has a serious downside, like the city that gets its news from a dumpster company, and also it seems to result in quite a shift to right-wing information. But it also shows that Facebook is pretty happy to turf a certain amount of 'fighty' content.
posted by warriorqueen at 8:49 AM on January 7 [5 favorites]

I would suggest that, almost by definition, anyone interested in volunteering for a 'moderation committee' is likely to have pretty weird views about content moderation.
posted by kickingtheground at 1:27 PM on January 7 [3 favorites]

That's a great comment to bring over to the MetaTalk on it.
posted by warriorqueen at 1:52 PM on January 7 [1 favorite]

I would suggest that, almost by definition, anyone interested in volunteering for a 'moderation committee' is likely to have pretty weird views about content moderation.
posted by kickingtheground at 13:27 on January 7

Volunteering for it wasn't even on my radar, and your comment made me realize it would be people with weird views misunderstanding each other on a slack.
Sign me up!
posted by otherchaz at 1:52 PM on January 7

New merch! Mug reads "Metafilter: people with weird views misunderstanding each other."
posted by k3ninho at 3:00 PM on January 7 [5 favorites]

I would actually buy one of those.
posted by a non mouse, a cow herd at 8:11 AM on January 8 [3 favorites]