But content like this rarely fits neatly into a box far too often I watched horrifically hateful ideas pass under the moderation bar so long as it was not full of pictures so gratuitously and brutally violent that there was no mistaking their meaning. Content that praised the actions of the Nazis in the Holocaust, glorifying their bigoted violence, would likely be left alone content that explicitly suggested that people go out right now and take up the Nazi’s actions, encouraging that violence to possible real-world consequences, might receive some sort of flag or take-down. The best way I can describe this to those who have never worked or thought much about the process of online moderation is an example I encountered all too frequently as a moderator. Often deciding what is unforgivably violent and hateful is still open to wide interpretation and not strictly enforced at all. While your first reaction to this edict might be “duh, that sounds about right,” the line between what social media companies deem to be “encouraging” violence-a bannable offense-and “glorifying it”-previously not considered so bad-has been seriously blurred in the past.
#INCEL SYNDROME UPDATE#
In an update this week on the company’s site-wide community policies (no doubt motivated by an environment of increased attention to real-world harassment and its shadow-play online), reddit banned /r/incels for violating its new content policy that prohibits the posting of links or comments that “encourages, glorifies, incites or calls for violence or physical harm against an individual or group of people”. Now, the 40,000+ group of incels that festered unchecked on reddit have been banned. “Incels” are a group of people, almost exclusively male, who believe that they are “involuntarily celibate”- that they are denied the sexual contact they feel to be their due-and they have carved out Internet communities devoted to this damaging and dangerous ideology.
0 kommentar(er)
