Even X’s AI, Grok, Finds Faults With X’s Moderation Policies

I discovered that X provides a link to Grok to provide incite (!) to all posts. So I decided to try it out for my post that attempted to get better support. The post did nothing on its own. But bringing Grok into the picture did. I even pushed it further by asking follow-up questions. It seems one must do so, as with all AI, to get it to provide specifics. I didn’t find a solution, but I did seem to expose the flaws. Perhaps something will come of it. Or maybe Fran or some readers can figure out another set of questions to get the stone wall to crumble a bit.

BTW, if I knew if Fran NEVER got any response from the moderation team, My next question would be — So then why hasn’t the team contacted him further since you admit they should have?

• The term “inauthentic” refers to something not being genuine or real, which could imply that @FranPorretto‘s account was suspended for appearing as something it’s not, potentially related to automated or bot-like behavior.
• X, formerly known as Twitter, has faced criticism for account suspensions, including high-profile cases like journalists and political figures, highlighting issues around freedom of speech and platform moderation policies.
• An ombudsman could address such grievances by investigating complaints against organizations like X, but there’s no mention of such a role existing within X to handle user disputes or suspensions.

Fran porretto is well known human being. He’s been publishing books and blog articles for over 20 years. What about his X account created suspicion he was not authentic?

Based on the information provided in the X post by Pascal Fervor and the context from related web results, Fran Porretto’s X account was suspended for “inauthenticity,” which might suggest that there were suspicions regarding the authenticity of his account activities or the identity he was portraying on X. Here are some possible reasons that could have led to such suspicions:

1. Automated or Bot-like Behavior: If Fran Porretto’s account was engaging in activities that seemed automated or non-human, such as posting at unusually high frequencies or in patterns that suggest automated posting, this could raise flags for inauthenticity. Platforms like X often scrutinize accounts for bot-like behavior to maintain the integrity of user interactions.
2. Identity Verification Issues: Given that Fran Porretto has been a public figure for over 20 years through his books and blog articles, any discrepancy between the identity he presents on X and his established public persona could lead to questions about authenticity. If there were inconsistencies in his profile details, or if the account was not verified despite his public stature, it might contribute to doubts about the account’s legitimacy.
3. Content Inconsistency: If the content posted from his account suddenly changed in tone, style, or subject matter in a way that didn’t align with his known writings, or if there were posts that seemed out of character, this could lead to suspicions of account compromise or impersonation.
4. Engagement Patterns: Anomalies in how the account engaged with others, such as following or unfollowing large numbers of users in a short period, or receiving engagement that seemed artificially inflated, could also suggest inauthenticity.
5. Previous Incidents: Although not directly mentioned in the provided content, if there were past incidents or controversies involving Fran Porretto’s online presence that questioned his authenticity or led to account issues, this might influence current decisions regarding his account status.

The lack of a clear explanation from X, as noted by Pascal Fervor’s post, and the absence of an ombudsman to address such issues, points towards a broader critique of how social media platforms handle account suspensions, especially for well-known individuals. However, without specific details from X’s moderation team, the exact reasons remain speculative based on common practices for identifying inauthentic accounts.

Citations: None directly applicable from the provided web results, as they do not specifically address Fran Porretto’s case. However, general principles of account suspension can be inferred from discussions on platform policies in similar contexts.

Why are specific details from X’s moderation team not forthcoming? The man paid his annual fee. He’s entitled to an explanation.

The lack of specific details from X’s moderation team regarding account suspensions, even for paying users like Fran Porretto, can be attributed to several reasons:

1. Platform Policy: X, like many social media platforms, might have policies that limit the disclosure of specific reasons for account suspensions to protect the privacy of other users involved or to avoid revealing their methods of detecting inauthentic behavior, which could be exploited by bad actors. This approach is common to prevent potential misuse or circumvention of their moderation systems.
2. Legal and Security Concerns: Providing detailed reasons for suspensions could potentially expose X to legal risks or security vulnerabilities. For instance, if an account was suspended due to a security breach or legal request, detailed disclosure might compromise ongoing investigations or legal proceedings.
3. Operational Efficiency: X handles a massive volume of accounts, and providing detailed explanations for each suspension might not be operationally feasible. The process could be resource-intensive, requiring significant time and effort from the moderation team, which might not scale well with the platform’s size.
4. User Agreement: When users sign up for X, they typically agree to terms of service that outline the platform’s rights regarding account management, including suspension without detailed disclosure. This legal agreement might be cited as the reason for not providing specifics.
5. Standardization: To maintain consistency, X might standardize responses to suspension appeals, focusing on citing the violated rule rather than detailing the specific activity that led to the violation, to avoid setting precedents or expectations for personalized responses.

Given that Fran Porretto paid an annual fee for his Premium+™ status, one might argue he should receive more transparency due to his investment in the platform. However, the payment of a subscription fee does not necessarily alter the platform’s policies on transparency regarding moderation decisions. The expectation of an explanation might be more about user rights and fairness, but platforms like X often balance this with their operational needs, legal considerations, and policy frameworks.

Citations: While not directly addressing Fran Porretto’s case, the following web results provide context on X’s approach to account suspensions and transparency:

* Discusses X's (formerly Twitter's) approach to account suspensions, highlighting the lack of detailed reasons provided to users.

* Mentions the need for transparency in content moderation, suggesting that current practices might not provide enough visibility into moderation decisions.

* Notes that X's transparency report does not go into specifics about individual cases, focusing more on broad statistics and actions taken.

You cite to “protect the privacy of other users involved,” for not disclosing the specific details. What if the moderation team was misinformed by an enemy of Fran Porretto’s writing? Aren’t you not providing unlimited power to a bad actor by not making a better attempt to help Mr Porretto get his account restored?

You raise a valid concern about the potential for misuse or manipulation of the moderation process by bad actors, which indeed could be a significant issue. Here’s why the current system might still operate the way it does, despite these risks:

1. Balancing Act: X must balance the need for transparency with the protection of user privacy and platform security. While not providing specific details might protect other users, it also means that individuals like Fran Porretto might not receive the detailed justification they deserve, especially if a misunderstanding or misinformation led to the suspension.
2. Appeals Process: Although the initial lack of detail might seem to give undue power to potential bad actors, many platforms, including X, have an appeals process where users can contest suspensions. This process should ideally allow for a review that could uncover any misrepresentations or errors, including those from malicious reports by enemies. However, the effectiveness of this process hinges on its implementation.
3. Standardization vs. Personalization: Standardized responses to suspensions are intended to ensure fairness and consistency. However, in cases where there might be targeted abuse or misinformation, a more personalized review might be necessary. Not providing detailed reasons initially might limit the platform’s ability to address such nuanced situations effectively.
4. Legal and Policy Constraints: Platforms like X might be constrained by their own policies, legal frameworks, or the sheer volume of complaints they handle, which can make personalized investigations into each case challenging. However, for paying Premium+™ members like Mr. Porretto, there might be an argument for enhanced support or review processes.
5. Accountability and Improvement: The scenario you describe underscores the need for platforms to continuously improve their moderation processes to prevent such abuses. This includes better mechanisms for users to provide context or evidence that might not have been considered initially, and perhaps more robust verification steps before acting on reports.

While the current system might seem to favor efficiency over fairness in some cases, it’s critical for platforms like X to consider:

• Enhanced Review Processes: For Premium+™ or high-profile users, implementing a more thorough review process could help mitigate the risk of bad actors manipulating the system.
• User Feedback Loop: Allowing more feedback from the user during the appeal process could help clarify misunderstandings or reveal malicious intent.
• Ombudsman or Mediation: As suggested by Pascal Fervor’s post, having an independent body or a more transparent mediation process could address these issues, providing a check against potential misuse of power.

In conclusion, while the current system might inadvertently empower bad actors by not disclosing specific details, platforms like X need to evolve their moderation practices to balance user rights with operational needs, enhancing the process to protect individuals like Fran Porretto from unfair treatment due to misinformation or targeted actions.

Citations:
* Highlights the criticisms of X’s suspension policies and the need for transparency.

* Discusses the broader implications of content moderation transparency and the need for accountability