You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
1 point

Why would big tech ever want to get rid of nasty meat bags when nasty meat bags drive much of their engagement and thus increase their advertising revenues? We can’t escape the realities of how the human brain operates, how much it likes to be stimulated regardless of the qualities of the stimulus.

I think a much more logical goal would be to take just enough action to avoid most (but not all) legal consequences while otherwise encouraging as many nasty meat bags to encounter other nasty meat bags with opposing viewpoints as possible. That would maximize brain stimulation, increasing engagement and thus revenue. This improves the stock price and makes your boss happier with you.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Nasty meat bags I am talking about is human moderators.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points
*

Oh, I see. Still not seeing a big incentive for big tech, those meat bags are providing free labor. No strong need to replace them.

edit: Oh wait, you’re talking about paid ones. Nevermind.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Free labor? Google/FB employ these people.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Fediverse

!fediverse@lemmy.world

Create post

A community to talk about the Fediverse and all it’s related services using ActivityPub (Mastodon, Lemmy, KBin, etc).

If you wanted to get help with moderating your own community then head over to !moderators@lemmy.world!

Rules

  • Posts must be on topic.
  • Be respectful of others.
  • Cite the sources used for graphs and other statistics.
  • Follow the general Lemmy.world rules.

Learn more at these websites: Join The Fediverse Wiki, Fediverse.info, Wikipedia Page, The Federation Info (Stats), FediDB (Stats), Sub Rehab (Reddit Migration), Search Lemmy

Community stats

  • 5.1K

    Monthly active users

  • 1.8K

    Posts

  • 62K

    Comments