Why not both?
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
The problem is understanding what's what. This isn't an "Oversight Board" of much consequence; it's a content moderation appeal process that's improved for the very very few cases that make it there. Fine but what's all the brouhaha? As if we're analyzing something big?
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
I would be the last person to disagree with that point. And make what you will about palace intrigue. But I'm an org scholar, and I learn about the org when I read pieces like this. Having more people with more access would help me triangulate some of these accounts tbh.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Heh, it's definitely true one learns from reading these pieces. But I'd read anything: the minutes of the board, any Facebok documents, whatever. I just try to remain clear-eyed about *what* I'm reading, and what process it is part of.
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Of course! But those board minutes, the FB documents - they are all written from a particular persp as well. I just operate on the assumption that in this space, right now, more is more. And I appreciate the detail here. (but I get your critique about the "definitive" comment)
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @robyncaplan @zeynep and
What I'm saying is that, in the long view of history, this is all helpful. Different folks will play diff roles in terms of how this story gets told in the future. And I don't even think the FOB will be around that long (...media self-reg just never is). Still interesting tho.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
Sure. Everything is interesting! Having a modest improvement in the content appeal process for the very very selected few cases now be folded, unsurprisingly, into an outright PR push is interesting, too.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.