3 ms·

Why should I? Your approach obviously is going to be to make a laundry list of things you don't like and that you'll claim I somehow do like, and aggressively a

Why should I? Your approach obviously is going to be to make a laundry list of things you don't like and that you'll claim I somehow do like, and aggressively accuse me of all sorts of things if I don't either give up or assert perfect agreement with you. What's in it for me to engage with you?

Natsu 9y ago
Please do not stuff words in my mouth, I've said no such things and we're supposed to assume good faith here, which only becomes more difficult when you're explicitly assuming bad faith on my part here. I'm asking exactly how much you're willing to ask them to ban to "do something" and how to define the contours of that. Proposals to "do something" about what people are allowed to say should be checked the same way we test code--by looking at all the hard edge cases. Your retort here is akin to a dev blaming QA for breaking their code by making the testcase too hard. That said, if your idea of "do something" isn't to block the speech, please let me know what it is that you have in mind, I will give you credit that it's not entirely clear what you're suggesting here.
- ubernostrum 9y ago
  My original comment was perfectly clear in identifying the problem with YouTube's recommendation algorithm, as I see it: in optimizing for time spent on site, it also as a side effect optimizes for recommending the most extreme content on YouTube. The fact that you felt the need to jump in the way you did suggests that you A) didn't actually read the comment, and B) were responding with a knee-jerk sound bite based on a ton of assumptions about me and my political inclinations. So like I said, what do I get out of engaging with you? So far, the answer is nothing worthwhile.
  - Natsu 9y ago
    This whole exchange might have been avoided by simply clarifying that your idea of doing something was to change how the recommendation algorithm works.

Natsu 9y ago

Please do not stuff words in my mouth, I've said no such things and we're supposed to assume good faith here, which only becomes more difficult when you're explicitly assuming bad faith on my part here. I'm asking exactly how much you're willing to ask them to ban to "do something" and how to define the contours of that. Proposals to "do something" about what people are allowed to say should be checked the same way we test code--by looking at all the hard edge cases. Your retort here is akin to a dev blaming QA for breaking their code by making the testcase too hard. That said, if your idea of "do something" isn't to block the speech, please let me know what it is that you have in mind, I will give you credit that it's not entirely clear what you're suggesting here.

ubernostrum 9y ago
My original comment was perfectly clear in identifying the problem with YouTube's recommendation algorithm, as I see it: in optimizing for time spent on site, it also as a side effect optimizes for recommending the most extreme content on YouTube. The fact that you felt the need to jump in the way you did suggests that you A) didn't actually read the comment, and B) were responding with a knee-jerk sound bite based on a ton of assumptions about me and my political inclinations. So like I said, what do I get out of engaging with you? So far, the answer is nothing worthwhile.
- Natsu 9y ago
  This whole exchange might have been avoided by simply clarifying that your idea of doing something was to change how the recommendation algorithm works.