Scapegoating the Algorithm

Errors, even lies, happen, but they are negligible compared to the most powerful tool of propaganda: cherrypicking. E.g. the otherwise thorough NYT reporting on air traffic controller shortages [1] entirely omitted the FAA diversity hiring scandal that disqualified applicants with top grades if they weren't diverse enough [2]. During COVID, the credible experts were happily making models of how many deaths a motorcycle rally caused [3], but when it came time to do the same for BLM, we instead got "Protest Is a Profound Public Health Intervention" [4]. This is not an outlier - social scientists have been turning a blind eye to results they dislike since at least 1985 [5].

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/02/business/air-traffic-cont...

[2] https://www.tracingwoodgrains.com/p/the-full-story-of-the-fa...

[3] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7753804/

[4] https://time.com/5848212/doctors-supporting-protests/

[5] The authors also submitted different test studies to different peer-review boards. The methodology was identical, and the variable was that the purported findings either went for, or against, the liberal worldview (for example, one found evidence of discrimination against minority groups, and another found evidence of "reverse discrimination" against straight white males). Despite equal methodological strengths, the studies that went against the liberal worldview were criticized and rejected, and those that went with it were not. - from https://theweek.com/articles/441474/how-academias-liberal-bi..., citing the study "Human subjects review, personal values, and the regulation of social science research.": https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1986-12806-001

The meat of their argument, in my opinion, relies on this:

> Nevertheless, it is noteworthy that the balance of empirical evidence in this area does not support the claim that social media use has a large impact on users’ political attitudes and behavior.

One such study they provide as a strong representative of the empirical evidence was by researchers collaborating with Meta where they did an RCT to test whether reverse-chronological vs ml algorithm feeds resulted int different political beliefs. I haven't looked into the study, but on its face that's an insanely stupid design; if my youtube feed became only reverse chronological one day I'd just open a different app after 40 seconds.

Content platforms' main product is their behavior-modulating feeds, their ability to hold your eyes for 4 hours a day. The idea that this wouldn't be effecting our politics is insane.

> Let's face it, putting the genie back in the bottle isn't an option.

The genie might be where it's always been, just a few new smokes and mirrors added for laughs and giggles.

> Either we reconstitute the aristocracy under a new, still-undefined regime or we solve the class problem so there's no aristocracy left to legitimize.

"We" being like who? And "aristocracy" is who?

You lost me at Phase 3 because scientists, engineers, policy wonks don't fit any definition of aristocracy. Phase 4 didn't offer new candidates for coronation, so what gives? Are you fomenting a revolution against said scientists, engineers and policy wonks? That's curious to put it mildly.