Note: This article only represents the author's personal opinion and does not represent the position of the agency.
This morning, an Internet veteran shared an anecdote with me. He said that in the era of PC Internet, he registered any social product. The system would recommend him to pay attention to some users. One of them must be keso. However, when registering Sina Weibo, No keso, then asked a bit, found that because Keso was banned by Sina Weibo (Kezo's Weibo ID is now called "keso has been xx"), the reason for the ban is because keso does not cooperate with Sina Weibo " What can be sent and what can not be sent "review requirements.
This should be a very symbolic event in the history of the Internet. After many years, there are people willing to talk about it. The core question here is whether the platform has the right to decide whether my remarks should or should not be.
The answer shows no. The platform does not have any authority to make value judgments on the user's content. It can determine whether it is true or false, just as the code can perform true and false, but it has no right to determine good and evil, good and bad.
Today, since the media's three watches released a "history of evil and my complaint history", shelling knows that values ​​are not correct, attacks on the body or make a statement such as hammer CTO pool built strong ugly, said Lilac Park The former CTO Feng Dahui was of poor moral character and said that he was "a dog of Sohu." Such speeches were not dealt with, even to some degree of indulgence. The final conclusion of the article was "Humanity is evil, if a platform is This will not be guided or restricted but will be ignored and condoned. What you can hope for is that it will die earlier and the sooner the better."
After reading the article, I have a question: If you know that you have the right to decide which words are evil, does that mean that it can remove any remarks, because "The ultimate power of interpretation of this site is to know everything", and your statement is not Evil, I have the final say.
Put yourself in place, if you make a community yourself, you have neither the ability nor the right to make value judgments on the user's content, thinking that some of the statements are “trivial†and then “processedâ€.
One of the netizens provided a personal case. The company he worked for was known to have been guilty. He complained to know and knew that the feedback given was that “we think well-known companies should be open to public discussionâ€. To tell the truth, in terms of this reply, knowing is indeed very fucking. "We think", who do you think you are, and why can you "think"?
I am still that point of view, knowingly not judgement, can not make any value judgments on the user's speech, you can say that you can not find any basis for disposing of the complained user, but you can not say because we think the company should accept the discussion, So we decided not to deal with it. As a community operator, knowing to forget "I" because it really is nothing.
The netizen also mentioned an analogy case with me. For example, pornographic content cannot be eradicated. The major platforms also face the problem of how to define them. However, they cannot give up the definition and management. But if you know that image recognition can do automatic image recognition (including video) and you can achieve 98% accuracy, you know that it is not the same as opinions and opinions. The yellow image can be clearly defined, isn't it? Yellow chart machines can be judged. In addition, truth and falsehood can also be defined. For example, a person who has not done something is said to have something and a black person who says it is white. This can be used as an excuse for "inaccurate" reasons. Sina Weibo now does so.
What can the platform do? You can't do anything. In the past few years, we were talking about Sina Weibo. We all had a steelyard. We knew there was no authority to deal with the issue of “unfriendly speech.†There really was no need to install foreign guests. .
Where there are human society, there are rumors and slanderers. They should die. Dante has left a floor in the nine floors of hell. But the world is like this. Knowing what to do is not creating conditions to make it worse. If it can make the world better, of course it is better. At this point, knowing is indeed not doing well, but I think there are certain technical means to improve, but it is definitely not the kind of thing I think you are wrong about, so I will delete you. Any form of encouragement to intervene in the user's speech is evil. We have not yet received enough controls. The government has no right to delete posts (of course it has power).
From a personal point of view, I sincerely hope that the wicked will go to hell.