371–380 of 732 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s definitely unsavory, but absolutely nothing compared to the conflicts of interest under Trump, ironically even in Ukraine. Remember the withheld US money used to blackmail for political dirt?
Whataboutism
This is the great fear of many come to pass - censorship by algorithm. Facebook didn't outright ban sharing of the Hunter Biden laptop stories like Twitter did, they instead tweaked their algorithm to prevent the story from spreading. We found out about it this time because Zuckerberg owned up to it, but what about next time? For all we know, Facebook, Google and Twitter are doing this right now on a range of other s…
> It's scary to think that just 2 to 3 corporations have the power to construct a false reality around us I do believe it's been this way for a while. Noam Chomsky wrote Manufacturing Consent in 1988. (There's a movie out there created in 1992 if you don't want to read the book). Basically the same factors at work then are the same factors at work today -- just escalated with an algorithm. There is an objective reali…
This is the great fear of many come to pass - censorship by algorithm. Facebook didn't outright ban sharing of the Hunter Biden laptop stories like Twitter did, they instead tweaked their algorithm to prevent the story from spreading. We found out about it this time because Zuckerberg owned up to it, but what about next time? For all we know, Facebook, Google and Twitter are doing this right now on a range of other s…
This is the great fear of many come to pass - censorship by algorithm. Facebook didn't outright ban sharing of the Hunter Biden laptop stories like Twitter did, they instead tweaked their algorithm to prevent the story from spreading. We found out about it this time because Zuckerberg owned up to it, but what about next time? For all we know, Facebook, Google and Twitter are doing this right now on a range of other s…
> It's scary to think that just 2 to 3 corporations have the power to construct a false reality around us I do believe it's been this way for a while. Noam Chomsky wrote Manufacturing Consent in 1988. (There's a movie out there created in 1992 if you don't want to read the book). Basically the same factors at work then are the same factors at work today -- just escalated with an algorithm. There is an objective reali…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's scary to think that just 2 to 3 corporations have the power to construct a false reality around us I do believe it's been this way for a while. Noam Chomsky wrote Manufacturing Consent in 1988. (There's a movie out there created in 1992 if you don't want to read the book). Basically the same factors at work then are the same factors at work today -- just escalated with an algorithm. There is an objective reali…
And when they are not too lazy to find out, they are labeled as racists, Russian sympathizers, anti-vaxers, conspiracy theorist and have their voices silenced... to protect democracy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But then when say the government is lying about something and the curators keep curating out the pertinent details, suddenly you need to go to such a tough place to find the truth
I would like to hear one example. One . Which "truth" did you find out on 8chan that the government lied about?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
A regime change that operates by simply telling FB there's increased Russian propaganda? A boogyman that powerful I'm sure he's responsible for everything!
When the then-head of the FBI released a particular public statement in 2016, many believed it swayed the election. On the other hand, you might claim the FBI was simply telling the American public something.
I disagree with labeling either “regime change”, but the influence such an institution wields can’t be taken lightly. Claiming Facebook could simply have ignored the warnings without any consequences would be disingenous.
Is it possible to be an unabashed openly conservative / Republican in a company like Facebook or Twitter or Google? One gets the impression that it's a club for one kind of animal only.
I think it should be viewed like this: in the eyes of many, Trump is a man who boasted about sexual harassment. Continuing to support such a man is borderline incompatible with holding basic values that one might hope every employee has. This viewpoint is really difficult to argue with. You can say that such transgressions are perhaps outweighed by any advantages of his presidency that you perceived, but that will no…
Western civil society doesn't have many strictly saintly people even among our most popular role models. In the United States where I live, we're constantly jammed up between trying to admire legitimate, world-changing accomplishments by our founders/framers and the fact that many/most of them were unapologetic slave owners. I imagine it's similar in a lot of the world.
Even in software anyone who cares has to try to navigate a set of opinions about key figures that range from "Luke Skywalker" to "pedophilia apologist" on the same person while trying to remain somewhat balanced about the whole thing.
Im my travels I've never met a person who isn't a monster judged by their worst act, and who isn't a saint judged by their best.
That's all very platitudinous and PC, so to grind out something actionable: I think every person should be vigorous in determining their own allegiances to and admiration for and condemnation of public figures, and very conservative in judging others for differing opinions. So basically Postel's Law: "be conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from others".
I'm bad at this myself, but I'm working on it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What I'm saying is that this is a heuristic, not an algorithm, and that you should blame Facebook, not "the algorithm"
> What I'm saying is that this is a heuristic, not an algorithm, and that you should blame Facebook, not "the algorithm" Anyone who ever had any direct contact with implementing heuristics would call bullshit on this take. Some heuristics don't even return the same result twice. Now the guy that presses the button is supposed to be held responsible for what comes out of that crapshoot?
If you implement heuristics, it's your damn job to test your implementation and monitor it for adverse effects.
In the context of this article, somebody made the decision to specifically change the thing (no matter if you want to call it a heuristic or an algorithm or whatever) to bury a certain story. This is not even an unintended outcome, it's an entirely intended outcome.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What I'm saying is that this is a heuristic, not an algorithm, and that you should blame Facebook, not "the algorithm" Anyone who ever had any direct contact with implementing heuristics would call bullshit on this take. Some heuristics don't even return the same result twice. Now the guy that presses the button is supposed to be held responsible for what comes out of that crapshoot?
Yes, that guy pressed the button even though he should have known there are consequences to that. If you implement heuristics, it's your damn job to test your implementation and monitor it for adverse effects. In the context of this article, somebody made the decision to specifically change the thing (no matter if you want to call it a heuristic or an algorithm or whatever) to bury a certain story. This is not even a…
You are only complaining that an heuristic outputted a result you don't like.
That's not a bug nor a problem. It's just that you feel you're entitled to an outcome that suits your fancy, regardless of the process involved.
Heuristics don't even ensure they'll output the same result twice, either because their input changes with time or because they already integrate a stochastic component.
Demanding that an operator polices the output of said heuristics especifically to suit your personal taste makes no sense at all, let alone demanding people be "held responsible" for disappointing you.