Sat, 15 Aug 2020

Content Moderation Case Study: Twitter Acts To Remove Accounts For Violating The Terms Of Service By Buying/Selling Engagement (March 2018)
Furnished content.


Summary: After an investigation by BuzzFeed uncovered several accounts trafficking in paid access to "decks" -- Tweetdeck accounts from which buyers could mass-retweet their own tweets to make them go "viral" -- Twitter acted to shut down the abusive accounts.

• Do additional moderation efforts -- AI or otherwise -- need to be deployed to detect abuse of Twitter Rules?
• How often do these efforts mistakenly target legitimately "viral" content?
• Will altering Tweetdeck features harm users who aren't engaged in the buying and selling of "engagement?"
• Will power users or those seeking to abuse the rules move to other third-party offerings to avoid moderation efforts?
• Is there any way to neutralize "retweet for retweet" requests in direct messages without raising concerns about user privacy?

• Does targeting spam more aggressively risk alienating advertisers who rely on repetitive/scheduled posts and active user engagement?
• Does spam (in whatever form -- including the manufactured virality seen above) still provide some value for Twitter as a company, considering it relies on active users and engagement to secure funding and/or sell ad space to companies?
• Do viral posts still add value for Twitter users, even if the source of the virality is illegitimate?
• Will increased moderation of spam reduce user engagement during events where advertising efforts and user engagement are routinely expected to increase (elections, sporting events, etc.)?  

edit: Policy/auto___content_moderation_case_study__twitter_acts_to_remove_accounts_for_violating_the_terms_of_service_by_buying_selling_engagement__march_2018_.wikieditish...