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.

[–] rglullis@communick.news 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Nasty meat bags I am talking about is human moderators.

[–] Carrolade@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] rglullis@communick.news 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Free labor? Google/FB employ these people.

[–] Carrolade@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago

Yeah I caught that when I reread your comment. I made an edit, just a little too slow.