We're ordering it the right way, but we're also simplifying the rules so that they're human-readable
so that people can actually understand themselves when something is against our terms and when something is not.
And then we're making — again, our big focus is on removing the burden of work from the victims.
So that means push more towards technology, rather than humans doing the work
that means the humans receiving the abuse and also the humans having to review that work.
So we want to make sure that we're not just encouraging more work around something that's super, super negative,
and we want to have a good balance between the technology and where humans can actually be creative, which is the judgment of the rules,
and not just all the mechanical stuff of finding and reporting them. So that's how we think about it.
I'm curious to dig in more about what you said. I mean, I love that you said you are looking for ways to
re-tweak the fundamental design of the system to discourage some of the reactive behavior, and perhaps,
to use Tristan Harris-type language, engage people's more reflective thinking.
How far advanced is that? What would alternatives to that "like" button be?