Meta’s top executive is shedding light on the company’s moderation efforts. This includes how it's AI might be removing too much content across all of its platforms in error.
Nick Clegg who is the head of the tech giant’s global affairs admitted that many mistakes continue to be made in terms of getting rid of content it feels is ‘unnecessary’. He also confirmed that the mistake rates remain too high while pledging for change in terms of better accuracy and greater precision.
Clegg also spoke about how the company might be trying to follow all the rules in the book and as a result, harmless content is being removed. This causes a lot of users to be penalized unjustly in the long run.
The company has already come under scrutiny in the past for deleting a lot of material related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Zuckerberg admitted that a lot of incorrect decisions arose after coming under pressure from the government.
At that time, rules were harsher and timing was not great for the pandemic. Hence it all came down to wisdom and some poor decision making. They did admit to overdoing it quite a bit. And it’s thanks to Meta app users who raised their voices to be heard.
These comments are proof that Meta’s automated AI systems are just unnecessarily harsh. It’s quite the right example of moderation failures that were once trending on Threads. However, despite knowing it all, the company has yet to make some major changes to content since the election started.
On the other hand, Meta’s oversight board, supposedly established to handle complex moderation dilemmas, remains powerless in addressing all the shadow banning and overly-moderated content due to the absence of a reporting mechanism and limitation. Critics argue this isn’t a mere oversight but a calculated move to limit the board’s influence, keeping ultimate control firmly in Meta’s hands. This aligns with Meta’s controversial track record of suppressing certain voices while amplifying harmful narratives. For instance, during the Rohingya crisis, Meta was accused of enabling violence against minorities, and in the Israel-Palestine conflict, it censored pro-Palestinian and Gaza voices fighting against genocide. Such actions suggest that Meta’s commitment to fairness may be secondary to its bottom line, prioritizing profit and power dynamics over accountability and justice.
Does this mean huge changes might be on the horizon? Well, we do think so because Meta is definitely working on it, especially since the issue is confirmed. Clegg admitted that not a lot of detail can be provided since discussions are high-level. However, they do hope to make new changes with the Trump administration.
So for users like us, it’s only about time that we see Meta make some necessary moderation changes and give users’ content the credit it deserves. What do you think?
Image: DIW-Aigen
Read next: Google’s AI-Powered Store Reviews: A Game-Changer for Shoppers or a Nightmare for Businesses?
Nick Clegg who is the head of the tech giant’s global affairs admitted that many mistakes continue to be made in terms of getting rid of content it feels is ‘unnecessary’. He also confirmed that the mistake rates remain too high while pledging for change in terms of better accuracy and greater precision.
Clegg also spoke about how the company might be trying to follow all the rules in the book and as a result, harmless content is being removed. This causes a lot of users to be penalized unjustly in the long run.
The company has already come under scrutiny in the past for deleting a lot of material related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Zuckerberg admitted that a lot of incorrect decisions arose after coming under pressure from the government.
At that time, rules were harsher and timing was not great for the pandemic. Hence it all came down to wisdom and some poor decision making. They did admit to overdoing it quite a bit. And it’s thanks to Meta app users who raised their voices to be heard.
These comments are proof that Meta’s automated AI systems are just unnecessarily harsh. It’s quite the right example of moderation failures that were once trending on Threads. However, despite knowing it all, the company has yet to make some major changes to content since the election started.
On the other hand, Meta’s oversight board, supposedly established to handle complex moderation dilemmas, remains powerless in addressing all the shadow banning and overly-moderated content due to the absence of a reporting mechanism and limitation. Critics argue this isn’t a mere oversight but a calculated move to limit the board’s influence, keeping ultimate control firmly in Meta’s hands. This aligns with Meta’s controversial track record of suppressing certain voices while amplifying harmful narratives. For instance, during the Rohingya crisis, Meta was accused of enabling violence against minorities, and in the Israel-Palestine conflict, it censored pro-Palestinian and Gaza voices fighting against genocide. Such actions suggest that Meta’s commitment to fairness may be secondary to its bottom line, prioritizing profit and power dynamics over accountability and justice.
Does this mean huge changes might be on the horizon? Well, we do think so because Meta is definitely working on it, especially since the issue is confirmed. Clegg admitted that not a lot of detail can be provided since discussions are high-level. However, they do hope to make new changes with the Trump administration.
So for users like us, it’s only about time that we see Meta make some necessary moderation changes and give users’ content the credit it deserves. What do you think?
Read next: Google’s AI-Powered Store Reviews: A Game-Changer for Shoppers or a Nightmare for Businesses?
