151–160 of 478 posts
This was another big one. User links a news article, the newspaper would get to moderate comments on Facebook, in the user's page
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I also believe any algorithm that isn't human-readable should be banned. If it can't be understood, nobody can validate that it isn't racist, sexist, or slanted towards encouraging violence and harm. The fact that technology companies have been grossly negligent and irresponsible isn't a reason to not regulate them: It's proof regulation needs to be much, much stronger.
Do you apply the same standard to people? Tell me, how did your brain come up with what you wrote? How do I validate that it isn't racist, sexist, or slanted towards encouraging violence and harm?
A key part of this legislation is the requirements for tech companies to provide selected news organisations with advance notice about changes to ranking algorithms. This has been generally overlooked in the reporting and discussion but I believe it is the actually the most important part of the legislation. It will give the selected news organisations an enormous advantage over other companies not included and prote…
Basically, this law would prevent Facebook from deploying just about any non-trivial change to its product without first doing a detailed analysis of how it would affect the Australian news business, in order to determine whether a notification is required.
See sections 52D and 52W of the bill: https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/bi...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Are you willing to make Google 10% as effective to achieve your goal of a human-readable algorithm? Absolutely. If it can't be done responsibly and ethically, perhaps it should not be done.
what % of people do you think would be willing to stop using search engines because they are unethical?
If the above is true, what's really going on here is that content producers got together and said, "if you don't pay all of us, we'll stop you from linking to all of us," and it was worth it to Google to pay. Clearly it wasn't worth it to Facebook.
The messaging on this tech vs news publishers in Australia is pretty intense. Any site that doesn't want google to index a page can add: to the page and it will not be listed when someone searches Google (as far as I know), thereby preventing all the alleged stealing/siphoning/etc of revenue/profits from news sites. Am I wrong here? If the above is true, what's really going on here is that content producers got toget…
You can make low quality simple crap, put a bunch of ads on it and give it to the the masses. The soap operas and quiz shows of journalism.
And you can make longread investigative journalism and put it behind a paywall. Undoing the damage the internet has done takes time but it can be down.
Good on Facebook for actually calling the Government’s bluff, with a straightforward explanation of the economics, instead of pretending to and posting strange and confusing things like Google. I tend to believe them that the impact will be minimal, but will be huge to publishers (which is why the law was so ridiculous in the first place).