Probably when content gets flagged people will revenge flag back. Unless you are a whale, then it can be quite painful. No-one wins and the issue on respecting people and curation for high quality worth value content... breaks. Flagging should be anonymous.
There is the comments section, but then the flags would not be anonymous.
I guess if the platform had a flag submission forms with required fields of reason and they get logged anonymously to a post section or drop down area - there are then options to see how and why things got flagged without digging through comments and gives the users a way to unflag if they think it's fair, even if they didn't flag in the first place. If a flag gets unflagged, it would then need to be repealed by a claim that it's not fair, a high ranking curator can then review and appeal the case. This would be a hard gate for revenge trolls to cross. It would still be dramatic but it would be easier to manage unjust trolling.
Issue is content is OK for some and not OK for others. The ethics behind it will have to depend on popular vote and curation revision... no bot nor terms of conditions nor personal worldview will steer the ship (and technically shouldn't) away from harmful, unjust and just plain terrible content. It's decentralized so the justice system needs to be autonomous.. and so far it only works well with high power individuals. Imo
Up to now mainly people that copy sound from videos on YouTube and publish as their own... may I know why do you ask?
Probably when content gets flagged people will revenge flag back. Unless you are a whale, then it can be quite painful. No-one wins and the issue on respecting people and curation for high quality worth value content... breaks. Flagging should be anonymous.
There should be required place to write a reason of flagging. If there is no reason there should be no flag.
There is the comments section, but then the flags would not be anonymous.
I guess if the platform had a flag submission forms with required fields of reason and they get logged anonymously to a post section or drop down area - there are then options to see how and why things got flagged without digging through comments and gives the users a way to unflag if they think it's fair, even if they didn't flag in the first place. If a flag gets unflagged, it would then need to be repealed by a claim that it's not fair, a high ranking curator can then review and appeal the case. This would be a hard gate for revenge trolls to cross. It would still be dramatic but it would be easier to manage unjust trolling.
Issue is content is OK for some and not OK for others. The ethics behind it will have to depend on popular vote and curation revision... no bot nor terms of conditions nor personal worldview will steer the ship (and technically shouldn't) away from harmful, unjust and just plain terrible content. It's decentralized so the justice system needs to be autonomous.. and so far it only works well with high power individuals. Imo
Probably it refers to flag plagiarism and stolen content, it is all people who should behave though but that may be too much to expect?