zlacker

> Because honestly, the amount of spam and abuse that are likely happening on these platforms has to be mind boggling high.

So hire more people. You can't argue that you can't do your work properly because your AI is not yet up to the task.

>>ameliu+(OP)
Agree. I find it odd that so many people bring up this argument, like these companies aren't sitting on piles of cash that could be invested in systemic, human-in-the-loop improvements. (Ok, maybe except Twitter)

>>ameliu+(OP)
You think humans are better at spotting abuse? Mods on Reddit demonstrate that such systems can be worse.

>>koheri+2f
Perhaps, but at least you can talk to a human, which is another aspect of the problem and probably requires a similar solution (more humans).

>>koheri+2f
You've shown that it's possible for human moderation to be awful, you haven't shown that it's impossible for human moderation to work well. It is possible. HackerNews is a fine example.

Paid moderators can have their work supervised (a 'meta-moderation system') akin to Slashdot.

>>koheri+2f
Reddit also has AI that can shadowban you.