Turn over moderation duties to AI

[annk]

The issue with moderation on this forum is not necessarily that it is performed by humans but rather that:

1) often a _single_ human decides (collective discussion is referenced but I do not see this reflected in moderator messaging).
2) there is no means to contest a moderator action : they decide, the decision is final, even if questionable or based on clearly incorrect assessment or an overly broad ‘rule’. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship.

...... Even with a positive response score (which would denote positive contribution to this community) on my profile, I will likely get banned for this inflammatory content (which would prove the point).

These points are incorrect.

1) A single moderator decides only in cases that are very clear. For example, when a spammer is posting, a moderator won't wait to consult others before taking action. A clear case of insults (such as "you're a loser" or similar) might be handled by a single moderator, but often also these are discussed. The reason for the discussion in these cases is not because the rule involved is unclear, but rather because in cases where a user already has been moderated for violations, discussion is often useful to determine how much the moderation should be escalated.

Even in cases where one moderator acts, everything that moderator did is visible to all other mods and admins. Moderators document everything they do, but even if they didn't, the forum software leaves clear traces.

You don't see the collective discussion referenced in the moderator message because of the way the forum software works. The semi-automatic moderator messages need to be sent by a individual. The moderator who has the time to do it takes care of the administrative housekeeping.

2) There is a very clearly explained way to contest moderation.

https://macrumors.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/201295026-What-if-I-disagree-with-moderation-of-my-posts

https://macrumors.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/201260827-How-are-moderation-errors-handled

Users contact us about moderation when they don't understand or agree with it, and moderation is overturned and apologies issued when we see that a mistake has been made. Luckily, that's not often - exactly because of the discussion that happens before most moderation is done. This channel to contact us about moderation exists because we're human and we know that mistakes can happen. When users contact us to question moderation, the admins do a review of the moderation that was done by the moderators.

The line between moderation and censorship is clear because users on this private site agree to rules as a condition of membership. Users can disagree with each other, post critical comments about Apple or other companies, questions editorial decisions made here (in the appropriate forum section), etc. We don't censor opinion; we simply expect users to follow the rules they agree to. Comments are only moderated if they break rules.

Finally, you won't be suspended for your comment, which doesn't break any rules. I do however think it's important to correct the misinformation in your post.

 

[za9ra22]

The issue with moderation on this forum is not necessarily that it is performed by humans but rather that:

1) often a _single_ human decides (collective discussion is referenced but I do not see this reflected in moderator messaging).
2) there is no means to contest a moderator action : they decide, the decision is final, even if questionable or based on clearly incorrect assessment or an overly broad ‘rule’. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship.

The whole mechanism seems arbitrary and I have found moderators here to be very sensitive… jokes have been made about an AI being unable to distinguish between jokes and serious statements but the same could be said of some moderators

Sites like StackOverflow have a community moderation platform which makes assessment of any post a matter of multiple site users, thus making the entire process much more objective.

Even with a positive response score (which would denote positive contribution to this community) on my profile, I will likely get banned for this inflammatory content (which would prove the point).

In theory at least, moderator action is actually performed by 'group decision', rather than an individual, so that point doesn't seem to apply.

Also, since the function of moderators is to control the 'tone' of the site, their decisions really can't be subject to debate, and neither can they be free from a certain amount of censorship - by the nature of things, removing an 'offending' post is censorship sin action by default.

One assumes, from your logic, that if you are not banned for your post on this subject, it also proves a point - just a different one.

 

[adib]

A perfect role for artificial intelligence; discussion forums moderation. That would be much better than the way it works now, with fallible humans making decisions based on their fallible judgements.

Ever heard of Microsoft's Tay?

 

[cmcbhi]

Why not?
What downsides would there be?

Another good thing; it would be real-time. Posts breaking rules would not be first posted and then reported/deleted. Much tidier and less frustration.

I guess you don’t know much about AI.