[aredox]

Twitter, Facebook & co could have hired millions of people and paid them magnanimously with the billions they make to scale moderation up. (Billions are really huge sums of money that people can't really fathom)

Instead they choose not to, and let the parts of the internet they cornered enshitify and pollute the rest of society.

Ironically had they done so, they would have now far more data to train moderation AI on. Instead they only have haphazard data

[gruez]

>Twitter, Facebook & co could have hired millions of people and paid them magnanimously with the billions they

Paying "millions" of people with "billions" of dollars means each person is getting paid $1k. That's below poverty levels of income, not "magnanimously" by any sane definition.

[from-nibly]

Also twitter is not profitable. It has negative money to play with.

[inglor_cz]

"Twitter, Facebook & co could have hired millions of people and paid them magnanimously with the billions they make to scale moderation up."

Nope, run the calculator again. Twitter is barely profitable even with current staff (and your proposal would literally multiply that staff thousandfold). Facebook is a bit better off, but you can't make enough money on ads to support good moderation for a global chatbox of a billion users speaking hundreds languages. Even at a ratio of 1 moderator per 100 users, the payroll would dwarf Meta's yearly revenue.