4 ms·

Why must they be? Imagine the mirror image scenario, where a man's done something wrong, and he has a $100k budget to stop me from telling people about it. Sho

Why must they be? Imagine the mirror image scenario, where a man's done something wrong, and he has a $100k budget to stop me from telling people about it. Should he really be able to say "hey Google, I'm not going to prove this, but he's totally defaming me so you have to censor him"?

toss1 9y ago
Yes, both happen, and there are many examples of your scenario. The thing is, Truth is an absolute defense against libel/slander. If you're telling the truth, you have zero liability. You argue that these companies should have zero responsibility for selecting for truth. That is wrong. These corporations are in fact performing the same functions as editorial boards at newspapers, often actually overriding editorial boards in many cases (choosing to display different stories, sequences, etc.). These companies are not dumb pipes, and their value is predicated on not being dumb pipes. They select every single line they display by an extensive set of criteria. They need to take responsibility for selecting and displaying according to truth value -- editorial responsibility, since they are exercising editorial discretion. Yes, it's costly. Yes they have the money (and they'll make even more).
- toss1 9y ago
  And also note that the failure of these companies to take editorial responsibility for the editing of our society's reality is seriously undermining its democracy.
- amarkov 9y ago
  Well, two responses to that: * Is this what you actually want? Would it be proper for Google to say "we've conclusively decided that climate change is real, so from now on we will delist all climate change denial content"? * What do you think the chances are that a newspaper editorial board would delete an article, just because you wrote them a letter saying it was false?
  - toss1 9y ago
    A Obviously not exactly as you describe, and certainly not as it is done now. Current algorithms do exactly the opposite -- prioritize falsehoods. This is because false stories have more surprise value than truth and are more noticed and spread more wildly [1]. The algorithms that value engagement, reading, re-sending, etc. thus raise these stories to the top. So, on things like climate change, people's reputations, etc., yes, they should behave like the editorial boards that they are, and prioritize content by actual experts in the field and by actual facts. No need to delete everything fake since they can list ~unlimited results, but it should certainly be appropriately down-ranked. While Google seems to have done a little bit to improve the results for a "flat earth" search, YouTube brings to the top a bunch of videos promoting flat earth BS. Sorry, but liars, charlitans, scammers, and worse should not be given the same platform and respect as actual experts and professionals. B that would depend on the content of the letter. It happens much more frequently than you seem to expect. And editorial boards every day exercise exactly this sort of restraint, especially at the more credible outlets: "Are there multiple sources for this?", "Is this actually verifiable?", etc. In short, to quote Asimov: "There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." No, ignorance is not just as good as knowledge and our major institutions (even and perhaps especially commercial ones) should not promote it as such. [1] http://science.sciencemag.org/content/359/6380/1146.full http://science.sciencemag.org/content/359/6380/1146.full

toss1 9y ago

Yes, both happen, and there are many examples of your scenario. The thing is, Truth is an absolute defense against libel/slander. If you're telling the truth, you have zero liability. You argue that these companies should have zero responsibility for selecting for truth. That is wrong. These corporations are in fact performing the same functions as editorial boards at newspapers, often actually overriding editorial boards in many cases (choosing to display different stories, sequences, etc.). These companies are not dumb pipes, and their value is predicated on not being dumb pipes. They select every single line they display by an extensive set of criteria. They need to take responsibility for selecting and displaying according to truth value -- editorial responsibility, since they are exercising editorial discretion. Yes, it's costly. Yes they have the money (and they'll make even more).

toss1 9y ago
And also note that the failure of these companies to take editorial responsibility for the editing of our society's reality is seriously undermining its democracy.
amarkov 9y ago
Well, two responses to that: * Is this what you actually want? Would it be proper for Google to say "we've conclusively decided that climate change is real, so from now on we will delist all climate change denial content"? * What do you think the chances are that a newspaper editorial board would delete an article, just because you wrote them a letter saying it was false?
- toss1 9y ago
  A Obviously not exactly as you describe, and certainly not as it is done now. Current algorithms do exactly the opposite -- prioritize falsehoods. This is because false stories have more surprise value than truth and are more noticed and spread more wildly [1]. The algorithms that value engagement, reading, re-sending, etc. thus raise these stories to the top. So, on things like climate change, people's reputations, etc., yes, they should behave like the editorial boards that they are, and prioritize content by actual experts in the field and by actual facts. No need to delete everything fake since they can list ~unlimited results, but it should certainly be appropriately down-ranked. While Google seems to have done a little bit to improve the results for a "flat earth" search, YouTube brings to the top a bunch of videos promoting flat earth BS. Sorry, but liars, charlitans, scammers, and worse should not be given the same platform and respect as actual experts and professionals. B that would depend on the content of the letter. It happens much more frequently than you seem to expect. And editorial boards every day exercise exactly this sort of restraint, especially at the more credible outlets: "Are there multiple sources for this?", "Is this actually verifiable?", etc. In short, to quote Asimov: "There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." No, ignorance is not just as good as knowledge and our major institutions (even and perhaps especially commercial ones) should not promote it as such. [1] http://science.sciencemag.org/content/359/6380/1146.full http://science.sciencemag.org/content/359/6380/1146.full