31–40 of 138 posts
The best feed is the chronological, non-algorithmic feed.
A screen full of this feed would just be tweets made at the moment the data for the screen refresh was fetched.
Is that what you or anyone wants?
Recommender systems like Twitter are as much about data as they are about code. Without the dataset and the derived statistics and models that are used for ranking and recall, the code is not going to help much with transparency.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except that's not what's happening here. When doing anything on the internet "how are you going to control spam and obvious trolls" is question #1. Twitter has an answer to that: we mechanically and/or personally identify spam/troll content, and ban their creators. Now, many people want them to stop doing that. Which they decline, since they KNOW what will be happening in that case. So, if you think you can do a bett…
The discussion is about whether people can see what the algorithms are doing. Read only access to the code so they cannot manipulate people into their belief system or arbitrary shadow-ban rules. You’re right about human judgement but that’s not the topic. The central point, I repeat emphatically, is about transparency, not governance. Twitter can continue exactly the same way but just be transparent. The intense pus…
No it can't. If the algorithm was transparent the only thing you'd see is spammers who have put tons of resources into figuring out the exactly optimal way to maximize engagement. Grassroots engagement would be impossible.
The best feed is the chronological, non-algorithmic feed.
Truly do not understand this point of view. The strictly chronological presentation is too easy to flood with unwanted posts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except that's not what's happening here. When doing anything on the internet "how are you going to control spam and obvious trolls" is question #1. Twitter has an answer to that: we mechanically and/or personally identify spam/troll content, and ban their creators. Now, many people want them to stop doing that. Which they decline, since they KNOW what will be happening in that case. So, if you think you can do a bett…
The discussion is about whether people can see what the algorithms are doing. Read only access to the code so they cannot manipulate people into their belief system or arbitrary shadow-ban rules. You’re right about human judgement but that’s not the topic. The central point, I repeat emphatically, is about transparency, not governance. Twitter can continue exactly the same way but just be transparent. The intense pus…
Public knowledge of what "X" is doesn't really help, I think, other than to aid spammers? And a requirement to "talk to a human" upon hitting X would surely immediately degrade into "Google has reviewed your appeal and has determined that the infinite block of your account remains in effect. There is no further appeal"?
Sounds like a bad idea. Bad actors would immediately exploit it and figure out how to most effectively flood everyone with spam, same as if Google's exact algorithms were public. Not everything has to be open.
Fortunately this has not turned out to be the case in reality. If there are flaws in the system they will probably be easier to find and fix with more eyes on it.
The best feed is the chronological, non-algorithmic feed.
An unmoderated chronological feed would simply be a running list of every tweet from every one . A screen full of this feed would just be tweets made at the moment the data for the screen refresh was fetched. Is that what you or anyone wants?
Recommender systems like Twitter are as much about data as they are about code. Without the dataset and the derived statistics and models that are used for ranking and recall, the code is not going to help much with transparency.