Earlier quoted context omitted.
What about the ugly bunnies? Don't be so heartless!
No such thing as an ugly bunny!
Consider the culinary section...
TikTok told moderators to suppress posts by “ugly” people and the poor
331–340 of 356 posts
Re: TikTok told moderators to suppress posts by “ugly” people and the poor
#332Earlier quoted context omitted.
No one is trying to end "exclusivity". Harvard is still exclusive even though it now admits a whole lot of people they would never have considered 100 years ago. But if a group is excluding people based on innate physical characteristics, maybe they should rethink that.
NBA? Football? Hollywood? And as I said, model agencies? Many physical attributes are absolutely relevant for a given context. What we should do, is getting rid of irrelevant and abhorrent discrimination, such as racial selection.
That's a meaningless statement. Bigots of the past all felt their personal prejudices were absolutely relevant, and didn't find the discrimination they practiced at all irrelevant or abhorrent.
Society made progress only because people fought against that. They were all accused of fighting against nature, but over time, more people realized those old standards weren't as "natural" as they were once thought to be.
Do you imagine we've reached the pinnacle of human social evolution and tolerance? Perhaps we still have similar lessons to learn, and people of the future will consider our behavior as abhorrent as we consider the 1800s.
Re: TikTok told moderators to suppress posts by “ugly” people and the poor
#333Earlier quoted context omitted.
Instagram does the same thing; my 'Explore' tab is full of beautiful people even though I don't follow them. From a business standpoint it makes sense to promote the best looking content since it'll lure in more young users. The young kids probably think something like "Hey look at all those beautiful people. I want to be like them and they use Tik Tok so I'm going to use Tik Tok too."
No, having worked on explore sourcing and ranking I can tell you with certainty Instagram does not do the same thing.
new account on instagram, click explore, there are people there, nobody ugly.
search for any tag that has mainly people like beach or hiking, all accounts are from very beautiful people with lots of followers.
your algorithm promotes people with more followers and likes, which are bound to be more beautiful people. Unless you avoid any interest in tags related to people and see only beautiful bunnies, not ugly bunnies, your feed will be only beautiful creatures.
I don't know how you can deny that.
Re: TikTok told moderators to suppress posts by “ugly” people and the poor
#334Earlier quoted context omitted.
Implementation is different, but passes all the same test cases.
Maybe it works that way, because users prefer to follow pretty people.
the question is having an algorithm do that (suppresing ugly and therefore unpopular users/photo) is different than having a moderator do it?
Re: TikTok told moderators to suppress posts by “ugly” people and the poor
#335Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean, if it’s the same result does it matter if it’s human or artificial moderation?
It's not the same result. Ugly/fat/poor people can make engaging content and that will be recommended on Instagram. The content you see depends on your interests. Making this up: if you regularly engage with topics that have a majority of fat people posting, say weight loss strategies, you will see a lot of fat people in Instagram Explore. It's the difference between: - Instagram: "I mostly see beautiful people" (bec…
I don't know where you see ugly people on instagram because I never saw one. it's not mostly, it's never, unless you specifically look for it. and how do you look for it?
by the same standard, you can see ugly people on tiktok, because they don't delete the post, they just supress it from popular feeds.
Re: TikTok told moderators to suppress posts by “ugly” people and the poor
#336Very old news
Re: TikTok told moderators to suppress posts by “ugly” people and the poor
#337Earlier quoted context omitted.
Reminds me of Doug Stanhopes brilliant bit about being ugly.
This one? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgXwc-Gy19E
Yes!
Mainly his points: "There's no solidarity with the ugly" and "people would rather be called the worst racial slur for their race then be called ugly"
Re: TikTok told moderators to suppress posts by “ugly” people and the poor
#338Re: TikTok told moderators to suppress posts by “ugly” people and the poor
#339Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe tall people have more confidence on average, which in certain leadership roles, could be a legitimate aspect of merit.
Why should taller people be more confident? Because people respect them for being tall?
Maybe tall people are precisely as confident as they should be, and it's short people who have issues. e.g. "Napoleon Complex". I've personally met more than a few people who fall into this phenomena. It's not a trait that's compatible with good leadership skills. As for why this might be the case at all, I'd guess it has something to do with us being glorified apes.
> In 2018, evolutionary psychologist Mark van Vugt and his team at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam found evidence for the Napoleon complex in human males. Men of short stature behaved more (indirectly) aggressive in interactions with taller men. Their evolutionary psychology hypothesis argues that in competitive situations when males, human or nonhuman, receive cues that they are physically outcompeted, the Napoleon complex psychology kicks in: physically weaker males should adopt alternative behavioral strategies to level the playing field, including showing indirect aggression and coalition building.[10]
Of course these are generalities and you can find many exceptions, but the same is true of "managers tend to be taller"; that too is a generality with many exceptions.
Re: TikTok told moderators to suppress posts by “ugly” people and the poor
#340Earlier quoted context omitted.
NBA? Football? Hollywood? And as I said, model agencies? Many physical attributes are absolutely relevant for a given context. What we should do, is getting rid of irrelevant and abhorrent discrimination, such as racial selection.
That's a meaningless statement. Bigots of the past all felt their personal prejudices were absolutely relevant, and didn't find the discrimination they practiced at all irrelevant or abhorrent. Society made progress only because people fought against that. They were all accused of fighting against nature, but over time, more people realized those old standards weren't as "natural" as they were once thought to be. Do…
Let's agree to disagree. I'm talking about physical discrimination being not simply valid by the standards of our time, but unavoidable, depending on the context. Short people can't play in the NBA, because they can't compete with bigger players.
The only progress that could push society past that, is genetic engineering. Everyone on equal footing or so different, that sport as we know it ceases to exist.