[philliphaydon]

> This need not be automatic.

So it's not content moderation to enforce rules and such of the system, just content moderation to apease advertisers.

That makes so much more sense now why there's so much content that gets reported and stays online and you get responses that there's no violation despite it being clear violation...

I've reported so many tweets over the last couple of years, where people are threatening others with violence, posting graphic videos of animals being killed or videos from the Ukraine war full of overly graphic content and I just get replies that there is no violation and I just assume that it's an automated response unless many people report the same content.

[shagie]

It's a mostly human process, and the humans that pay money are the ones most likely to be heard first.

Many social media systems experimented with a purely automated system and had difficulty with automated systems that likewise reported everything that they didn't like and that resulted in the content creators getting banned for non-reasons.

This leads to needing to having a human check things - and humans don't scale.

Look at the stories of Youtube content moderation - both the humans involved and the false positives from when humans aren't involved - for examples of "why we can't have nice things."