61–70 of 90 posts
It seems like the possibility that photos-of-undress are promoted by organic engagement is not discussed? (aka people seem to be clicking on this). Confession: this is the first thing that sprang to mind for me. Not that algorithms suck or companies suck (though both of those are true) but that people suck.
> the label “beauty”, for instance, was only returned for females Males just dont look good, or something. Edit: as someone noted before, my point was not that that men look badly. More that it is ridiculous bias I did not even noticed before.
People disagreeing with this comment: please consider what the post is trying to highlight. There's an apparent asymmetry in how imagery of females is perceived, vs. similarly posing males. Commercials employing 'sex sells' tactics are still biased towards using the female sex to sell. Reddits' r/gonewild and offshoots is pretty huge, and filled with females. This is a truism. The label 'beauty' being only returned f…
> To me personally it is enlightening to see how 'smart' data driven systems expose the systemic biases in our society.
I also think that they to make that systemic bias bigger. Like, if there is small difference between the gender of elegant in real life, the algorithm will make it higher. The human bias in worst as amplifier too, but I find algorithmic harder to control and even worst in amplifying effect.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unless your don't want to, but you are obliged to use IG because your business focuses on a demographic on which IG has a monopoly (the 15-25 demographics in the EU).
I'm sure there are worse jobs than using Instagram
> While our results show that male and female content creators are forced to show skin in similar ways if they want to reach their audience, the effect could be larger for females, and be considered a discrimination of female entrepreneurs. Overall this article strikes me as a large collection of pseudo-science but this sentence baffles me the most. Is the author arguing against their own conclusions?
I think it's called "subtlety" but I'm no native speaker.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm sure there are worse jobs than using Instagram
There's a difference between using Instagram and having to wear a Bikini on Instagram even if you don't want to.
> While our results show that male and female content creators are forced to show skin in similar ways if they want to reach their audience, the effect could be larger for females, and be considered a discrimination of female entrepreneurs. Overall this article strikes me as a large collection of pseudo-science but this sentence baffles me the most. Is the author arguing against their own conclusions?
> Posts that contained pictures of women in undergarment or bikini were 54% more likely to appear in the newsfeed of our volunteers. Posts containing pictures of bare chested men were 28% more likely to be shown.
The effect is clearly larger for women, and if you have no problems with their data I don't think it is a reach to assume it disadvantages female entrepreneurs more than male entrepreneurs, especially given that in many cultures the pressure to dress modestly is stronger on women than on men.
And I dread to think what the tiktok algorithm prioritises.
It seems like the possibility that photos-of-undress are promoted by organic engagement is not discussed? (aka people seem to be clicking on this). Confession: this is the first thing that sprang to mind for me. Not that algorithms suck or companies suck (though both of those are true) but that people suck.
This model takes many of the features of the image into account: the account posting, the account’s previous likes, the number of existing likes and the time frame they were received in, the GPS location of the poster, etc... and possibly... deep learning features from the image itself.
If the model has the deep learning features... it will take all of 10 minutes of IG-scale data to overpromote hot naked people. It will also learn all of their userbase’s biases, and underpromote content from black people that isn’t “stereotypically black,” overweight women, short men, etc.
It seems like the possibility that photos-of-undress are promoted by organic engagement is not discussed? (aka people seem to be clicking on this). Confession: this is the first thing that sprang to mind for me. Not that algorithms suck or companies suck (though both of those are true) but that people suck.
> the label “beauty”, for instance, was only returned for females Males just dont look good, or something. Edit: as someone noted before, my point was not that that men look badly. More that it is ridiculous bias I did not even noticed before.