[radmarshallb]

I would expect that social media websites whose content is largely decided democratically (via votes, shares, or the like) would relegate the majority of this content to a place where it is not seen by many. I would argue that the best way to handle this issue is to let the sites mechanisms deal with the content accordingly and then focus efforts on developing processes that will be able to detect and remove it automatically.

The article implies that they are forcing moderators to view the content at a high clip. Why, so as to get false positives back online as quickly as possible? Maybe moderators should only review content that reaches a certain threshold of complaint, and other content is left as is?

[legulere]

Reddit is such a website and it’s generally consensus there that voting alone does not work.

[wlesieutre]

Subreddits are pretty heavily moderated via the "report" buttons. Moderators are basically whatever community member created the community plus the other volunteer users that they picked, and if you have a problem with a subreddit's moderation the usual response is "It's my sub, you can leave."

I'm not sure how that would work for facebook.

[ben_w]

Reddit recently deleted a whole bunch of subreddits because they decided that wasn’t good enough.

Anecdotally, I know someone who was interested in one of those topics (zoophilia), who thought the subreddit in question was “a dumpster fire” yet was still upset about it being banned.

[empath75]

If you have voting and subreddits you’d just end up with a community that only upvotes what they think is the best child porn (ie: Reddit’s jailbait subreddits)

[radmarshallb]

Right, but that content doesn't seem to escape that specific subreddit (Or if it does, it is quickly voted down to oblivion). So in the context of moderators having to view objectionable content all day it is either content they don't mind viewing, or neatly packaged so it can be banned entirely if it is illegal.