Filip Larsen said:
Is the conclusion on moderation really that it is only effective enough in small enough networks and in larger networks effective moderation means social media would then not be social media? If that is true I guess that is somewhat equivalent to say that humans in large enough groups cannot be expected to be able to coorperate constructively with each other on an individual level without organizing into hierachies or sub-groups.
Sounds to me like general society in action, where groups and sub-groups exist. Since social media is a function of society, it should not be surprising that clumpings will also exist.
In general society there are rules and regulations for people to follow to be considered a good citizen.
If one of those laws are broken, and if found out, there are consequences for the bad behavior. For example, not all speeders are charged with travelling over the speed limit. Those that are found out, are found out by the moderators of the street and highway system, in this case the policeman. If the traffic is light, and the network small ( a town ), just a few moderators can catch most, if not all, speeders over the expanse of the jurisdiction, as all infractions will be nearly in line of sight, and the moderator might just happen to know just about everyone, including those with a propensity to speed.
As the town and traffic network increases in size, more moderators will be needed for patrol.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_number_of_police_officers
Note the relationship for Canada and the United States, two countries more similar than different in other aspects of economic representation as a basis of comparison - 184 and 422 per 100,00 inhabitants. ( As a side note, the Vatican rate is 15, 439 - go figure ). We can't say anything as to the efficiency of catching speeders in either jurisdiction, as the uncaught speeders is an unknown.
If general society would want every speeder to be caught, then the number of necessary moderators ( policemen ) would be a hard pressed figure to obtain. A high number such as a policeman on every corner might be necessary, or the again overkill. Nevertheless, it still does not do away with those who might want to attempt to beat the system and do it anyway, or as part of a speeding convoy group, or as one who will speed if they feel 'safe' enough to do so anyways. Instead, general society has decided that catching some percentage of speeders, not all, is a reasonable outcome for the use of tax dollars. Nonetheless, that 'some' can be increased through the usage of technology, such as hand held radar and photo radar, where every vehicle can be tracked as it passes by, with nary a thought given by most of the population of drivers, as they are 'not doing anything wrong', just doing ' a little bit wrong', and its for a good cause such as to 'save the children' ( who could argue against that ).
For social media policing, catching each and every infraction seems to be a desired goal ( contrary to the reasoning applied to general society ), with each and every posting on social media monitored.
Just as much as one does not want to be under investigation for saying 'fire fly' in a crowded movie theatre, one would not welcome a wellness check for saying the same in a posting in forest fire season.
As is breaking up the clumps. Clumps that have 'undesirable' traits would, or should be, under scrutiny. Undesirable, then would have to be defined, and by whom, with the definition falling under interpretation due to the politics of the day.
