Twitter, Facebook, Et Al: The Case For Freelance Content Moderation

Leadership Strategy Twitter, Facebook, Et Al: The Case For Freelance Content Moderation Robert Zafft Contributor Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own. I cover The Right Way to Win: business ethics, compliance & governance Following New! Follow this author to stay notified about their latest stories. Got it! Oct 9, 2022, 09:26am EDT | Share to Facebook Share to Twitter Share to Linkedin Twitter and Facebook logos AFP via Getty Images Elon Musk now wants to close on Twitter .

Meanwhile, Mark Zuckerberg scrambles to save Facebook. The time for freelance content moderation has come. Musk & Twitter — Creating the preeminent free-speech platform Elon Musk wants to restore Twitter’s position as the preeminent free-speech platform.

Twitter account of Elon Musk SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images Among other things, Musk has promised to publish Twitter’s algorithms and to limit free-speech restrictions to those required by law. One key element as-yet unmentioned is content moderation. Currently, moderation involves approximately 1,500 Twitter employees or contractors reviewing content and complaints.

The resulting decisions are typically opaque — and in many high-profile cases – biased and flat-out wrong. Twitter needs a model for content moderation that reflects Musk’s commitment to transparency and free speech. Zuckerberg & Facebook — Scrambling back from the brink? MORE FOR YOU Juan Soto Contract Rejection Could Make Orioles A Better Buy Than Nationals 6 Key Areas Of Personal Finance For High Earners Like Home Run King Aaron Judge Roberta Einer Spins ’90s Sex Appeal For SS23 Facebook faces its own content-moderation challenge.

Year to date, Facebook’s stock has f allen 60% . Previously fawning reportage now fortells mass layoffs and a death spiral. Facebook co-founder, Chairman and CEO Mark Zuckerberg Getty Images Facebook employs, directly or indirectly, approximately 15,000 content moderators .

These 15,000 people not only drain cash, but frequently damage Facebook’s reputation and goodwill through poor , or politically motivated decisions. A 2021 poll found that 75% of American lack confidence that social media content moderation is fair and unbiased. Such results suggest why people may be souring on Facebook.

At the least, we can say that Facebook gets a poor return on its investment in moderation. Time for a new content-moderation model Crowdsourcing v command-and-control Twitter and Facebook have tried to adapt and adjust in light of content-moderation challenges. Twitter has experimented with crowd-sourcing moderation through a program called Birdwatch.

It is unclear, though, what skills, fairness, or skin-in-the-game crowdsourced moderators will bring. Facebook, meanwhile, has created a semi-independent Oversight Board to serve as a court of appeal. This approach, however, only has bandwidth for high-profile cases.

Realigning motivations, incentives, oversight, and transparency through freelance content moderation Some organizations suggest that social-media companies double down on the current command-and-control model by bringing content moderation entirely in house and spending more money on individual moderators. But, this approach also doubles down on costs and reputational risks without necessarily producing better results. Why will employees outperform contractors? Where moderation problems arise from bias, how will paying moderators more money improve matters? Improving content moderation forces us to rethink motivations, incentives, oversight, and transparency.

Perhaps the time has come for experimenting with freelance content moderation, as described below. Such moderation will outsource content review and standards enforcement, reducing cost and reputational risk for the platforms, while requiring freelancers to put financial and reputational skin in the game. At the same time, freelance moderation will create a new, strong source of cash flow to the platform.

Element of freelance moderation Here is how freelance moderation might work in the context of Twitter, for example. A Twitter user posts a tweet Another Twitter user or user(s) may file a complaint against a specific tweet for violating platform standards. Such complaint must: (i) follow a standard template that requires specific allegations; and (ii) include a financial bond in Dogecoin or conventional currency The defendant user must, within a specified time: (i) acknowledge the complaint and remove or amend the tweet; or (ii) deny the complaint and post a defense bond In the event of defendant’s denial, a first-instance arbitrator will decide, providing a reasoned opinion.

Upon publication of the decision: (i) the losing party will forfeit the bond; (ii) the bond will be split between the arbitrator and the prevailing party If the losing party wishes to appeal, it must within a specified period, file a reasoned appeal and post a triple bond, subject to forfeiture. An appellate arbitrator will rule and issue a reasoned opinion If the appellee wins: (i) the appellate arbitrator will receive one-third of the bond; (ii) the appellee will receive two-thirds of the bond If the appellant wins: (i) the appellant arbitrator will receive one-third of the bond; and (ii) the appellee and the first-instance arbitrator will disgorge to the appellant the forfeited bond from the first-instance arbitration Twitter will establish further levels of appeal, ultimately to a Supreme Arbitral Panel established by the company Twitter will also: (i) upload decisions into a searchable data base to promote transparency and consistent development and application of standards enforcement; (ii) develop and apply algorithms that track, score, and publish (a) individual users’ successful complaints, denials, and appeals; (b) arbitrators’ rates of appeal, as well as rates at which decisions have been upheld or reversed; (c) establish bonding rates for users based upon a combination of dispute track records and the number of verified followers a defendant/respondent user has; (d) promote, demote, or dismiss arbitrators based upon their track records Promotion/demotion will apply to the levels at which an arbitrator participates (first-instance, initial appeal, second appeal, etc. ), as well as matters involving bonds of varying amounts The advantages of the above system include: Elimination of costly, in-house moderators and full-time contractors, whose mistakes damage Twitter’s reputation Self-policing of standards by users and arbitrators through transparent mechanisms that align incentives with Twitter through financial and reputational bonding Positive cash flow and float to Twitter, which will hold bond funds subject to final disposition of disputes The Devil is in the Details The above is obviously only a bullet-point outline.

But, it addresses a real problem social-media platforms face, which is finding a better model for content moderation. Any such model must grapple with motivations, incentives, oversight, and transparency. therightwaytowin Follow me on Twitter or LinkedIn .

Check out my website . Robert Zafft Editorial Standards Print Reprints & Permissions.