141–150 of 178 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's interesting - FDA forced Kraft the name change due to the ingredients. > https://web.archive.org/web/20110110185442/http://www.fda.go...
That actually makes a surprisingly interesting read. "Your firm's "Kraft Velveeta Pasteurized Process Cheese Spread" product is misbranded within the meaning of Section 403(g)( 1) of the Act in that it purports to be or is represented as a food, namely pasteurized process cheese spread..." So it's official: Velveeta is not food!
Any form of media that earns its profit from viewership and selling advertising, including broadcast and cable news and news radio, is optimized for outrage. That's what attracts the eyeballs. The "algorithmic" part is irrelevant.
I agree with you, but the “algorithmic” just takes it to another level: instead of having a few channels targeted toward a bunch of groups, the targeting is at the individual level.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Among the conventional talking points that's flawed. NBA's interest in China is at least $500 million and may clear $1 billion. That's consequence-inducing. https://www.si.com/nba/2019/10/07/daryl-morey-rockets-china-...
Seems like you and the article agree with me here (the consequences are financial, not imprisonment for the average NBA player.) And if financial consequences count as a free speech issue to you, then you agree with me that free speech isn't just about judicial arrest.
Point remains that as a government China has considerable means and impunity at its disposal.
The fact that numerous non-state actors also do is a key extension of free-speech concerns I find poorly addressed. The NBA as a media platform (among its chief roles) is an example. FAANG similarly. There are numerous others.
When making up one one's mind about whether Zuck is sincere in his passionate pleas for free speech, consider that: 1) he took no questions from reporters, only pre-moderated questions from students, and 2) Facebook Live chat was scrubbed of any critical comments by algorithmic filters. https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/ma...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree with you, but the “algorithmic” just takes it to another level: instead of having a few channels targeted toward a bunch of groups, the targeting is at the individual level.
And it's a black box sometimes, people who tuned neural networks won't even understand what the NN is optimizing it for.
I’m more interested in why Facebook is marketing their platform to be about free speech. Is it a defensive move against potential regulation? - e.g. “if you regulate us, you’re taking away peoples right to free Speech”
Yes, "free speech" protects it against lawsuits. See Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
Background: https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/21/18700605/section-230-inte...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I spent 2 years trying to “fix” my feed before leaving Facebook altogether. There was no way at the time - the alg would always surface the absolute worst things that anyone I knew would post because the algorithm knew it would get the most responses.
Maybe the section of the AI devoted to you has tagged you as someone who likes outrage. Maybe you have posted some outrage stuff. My experience is opposite from yours.
When making up one one's mind about whether Zuck is sincere in his passionate pleas for free speech, consider that: 1) he took no questions from reporters, only pre-moderated questions from students, and 2) Facebook Live chat was scrubbed of any critical comments by algorithmic filters. https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/ma...
Freedom of speech and freedom of association do not imply any obligation to listen to or respond to everything, and permit you to privately filter.