Does Facebook delete all their objectionable content or do they store it away in the forbidden data box? What about smaller forums and their content? Backups of all postings are gathered in one way or another. If not your own backups others will make them for themselves.
Deleting (or storing it someplace else like a hard drive) data from a server is a cost cutting device.
As for seeing objectionable content described in the above article? I agree that those who sift through the muck should be compensated justly. Not only monetarily but for their health and service. Doing a job of that nature is more than just a public service. It also serves a higher one. A moral one. Offering ones services to clean the sewers of the social mind is a commendable one. One that is under appreciated.
But the sewers aren't the only places where admins and mods find themselves with problems. Moderating drama and ideologies gets really heated. Name calling and argument shifting are prevalent. Professional argumentation skills marketing issues to the forefront of the public mind make it difficult to see which issues should take precedence over another. Many issues are designed to inflict damage upon one group or another. These 'top stories' cause much angst on the social forums. Emotional outbursts are common. How should a moderator proceed? What comments should be deleted or flagged?
Those are questions one learns along the way...
...along with many others...
I ran into this article that is relevant:
Are Toxic Political Conversations Changing How We Feel about Objective Truth?
As political polarization increases in the U.S., the kind of antagonistic exchange exemplified by the Trump-Clinton debate is occurring with increasing frequency—not just among policy makers but among us all. In interactions such as these, people may provide arguments for their views, but neither side is genuinely interested in learning from the other. Instead the real aim is to “score points,” in other words, to defeat the other side in a competitive activity. Conversations on Twitter, Facebook and even YouTube comment sections have become powerful symbols of what the combativeness of political discourse looks like these days. We refer to this kind of discussion as “arguing to win.”
The divergence of Americans’ ideology is accompanied by an animosity for those across the aisle. Recent polls show that partisan liberals and conservatives associate with one another less frequently, have unfavorable views of the opposing party, and would even be unhappy if a family member married someone from the other side. At the same time, the rise of social media has revolutionized how information is consumed—news is often personalized to one’s political preferences. Rival perspectives can be completely shut out from one’s self-created media bubble. Making matters worse, outrage-inducing content is more likely to spread on these platforms, creating a breeding ground for clickbait headlines and fake news. This toxic online environment is very likely driving Americans further apart and fostering unproductive exchanges.
In this time of rising tribalism, an important question has arisen about the psychological effects of arguing to win. What happens in our minds—and to our minds—when we find ourselves conversing in a way that simply aims to defeat an opponent? Our recent research has explored this question using experimental methods, and we have found that the distinction between different modes of argument has some surprisingly far-reaching effects. Not only does it change people’s way of thinking about the debate and the people on the opposing side, but it also has a more fundamental effect on our way of understanding the very issue under discussion.
Depending on the topic, I bet intelligence agencies will the justin beiber method recruiting a youtuber that gets enough followers.
Western intelligence agencies don't beleave in gathering and investigating facts, and will only act on what feelings could possibly increase department funding and a paycheck.
Thanks FBI for all the excuses you create to protect the downfall of America.
I think all intelligence falls under this same kind of criticism. They all gather data, they all analyze it, and they all come to conclusions as to what profits their agendas best. Most of the time the lower echelons of society get the shit end of the stick. They all hire famous people to troll for them in one way or another. Along with job opportunities for regular people to troll for a wage. And I figure all agencies have a vested interest in the bottom line. They all practice clandestine business opportunities to make a bundle.