331–340 of 403 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
The Epoch Times is not a credible source. “The Epoch Times is a far-right[16] international multi-language newspaper and media company affiliated with the Falun Gong new religious movement” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Epoch_Times
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh, was this finally confirmed? I stopped following that story a long time ago.
What was “confirmed” was that many emails placed onto the hard drive were, in fact, real emails. (The content of those emails is fairly innocuous, neither illegal nor even particularly corrupt. But a year of continuous drumbeat spun GOP partisans into a frothy outrage about it.) Those who investigated thoroughly found that the chain of custody of the hard drive was incredibly sloppy and the content of the hard drive…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
Got a link to some actual peer reviews of his research? I've seen him trotted out before, but at most the only data people seem to be able to produce related to his work are interviews like the one you linked, and his website (which is just request for donation after request for donation).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The openness for the algorithm is to make public how the algorithm works internally. It has nothing to do with how "novel" or "good" or "bad" the algorithm is. It is just a way to check if there is anything fishy going on in there. I don't see what the fuss is about if it only makes the defacto town square of the internet more transparent and open.
Twitter isn't the town square of the internet. The internet is the town square of the internet and you aren't owed a fair ranking in relation to a certain search term user or combination thereof because no singular definition of fair.
Maybe to you. You are entitled to your opinion. I won't censor you for having a contrary opinion.
> owed a fair ranking
Well we are getting it whether you like it or not.
> because no singular definition of fair
Of course there is. If New York Post's tweet about Hunter Biden's story gets blocked, I would like to see Taylor Lorenz's story about LibsofTikTok get blocked in a "fair" system. Since both are doxxing after all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A comparison I did from four months ago across google, ddg, yandex, and search.brave, searching for "are conservatives being silenced by big tech" https://i.imgur.com/MVlshAT.png You don't have to be conservative to see there's a pretty significant bias, just in the headlines. I'm a Pacific Green and I can still see it.
that's kind of a silly meta search query, not checking for bias in coverage of climate or race or religion or whatever.
If it were objective, you'd think it would try and suggest something for all queries just to be maximally useful. But it doesn't. I mean surely people have asked questions that start with "are white people" why not show the most common one, or the most controversial, or the "highest quality" whatever that is. But no, absolutely nothing.
Someone clearly has their thumb on the scale.
>religion
Nah, this one is super obvious in the lack of an Easter doodle, but every other religion gets a shoutout on their important days. Just like the lack of one for International Men's day. Google's bias is as predictable as every other (D-CA).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even just releasing the audit trail of shadowbans, upranking, downranking would be meaningful. Full transparency of actions taken in the past and going forward.
This will never happen, not even under Elon. It makes them wide open to litigation.
How? What specifically opens them up to litigation? It is a private company. It can do anything it wants as long as it is within the bounds of law. They have every right to ban anyone. Even on flimsy grounds. The idea here is to expose all the moral wrongs and bring it to the fore. Not that they are legally in the wrong (most cases they aren't). An audit is a good place to start.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
Interesting. I reckon Google wasn't causal here, but rather access to unfiltered information was. A goodly portion of conservatives/conservative-leaners I know and love are fairly gullible to Fox News and other bastions of ten-truths-with-a-lie approaches. Unfiltered information and data literacy sometimes helps to overcome that problem -- 2% - 5% of the population sounds about right for that shift to my prior. Your…
Humans write and train algorithms, and the quality of a search engine stems from biasing the result. Human moderation is also done by people with bias.
So tech workers that tilt heavily woke, not even just democrat, are likely to both intentionally and unintentionally bias results.
Tech oligarchs of cause will pursue their own politics, but their use of repressive tolerance to censor true unfavorable stories to their politics (eg Hunter Biden laptop showing curruption) and pushing dubious stories favorable to their politics (eg russia collusion) should give them editorial liability as a publication not a section 230 company.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>"Wonder if their RSU grants have a clause that converts them to cash in the event of a takeover" This is interesting question since RSUs are a big part of total comp but how are unvested RSUs dealt with when the stock is retired? Are those put on a future cash comp schedule? And if so at what conversion rate?
The last place I worked had an explicit clause in the RSU agreement that essentially said "if we get bought the price per share for unvested stock will be given to you as cash".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or is it six cats in a basement with a laser pointer and a mouse? The point of releasing it is to let people know exactly why they see the tweets they do in the order they do. I hope Elon just goes back to time base ordering of tweets.
I personally know a FAANG employee whose full time job is building tools to try and help understand why the company's recommendation algorithm picks the things it does (and more specifically, predict how changes to the algo will affect that). Even the people who build these systems barely know what the algorithm is going to do, much less why . It will be a herculean task to try and convey that to an average user.
Many people have commented that it is empty. However what they do not realize is that there has never actually been an algorithm and that is why it is empty.
You know what? This does demonstrate the internal problems inside Twitter and shows the need for shakeup.