4 ms·

Well said, and I agree completely about this story. There's still an aspect of this with which I'm unsatisfied, however. What's the character of leadership who

Well said, and I agree completely about this story. There's still an aspect of this with which I'm unsatisfied, however. What's the character of leadership who would address misuse of the feature by devising weights intended to devalue the opinions of large swaths of their engaged user base? Significant numbers of people are expressing a sentiment through their alleged abuse of the feature, and instead of trying to channel that constructively, the company is devising ways to ignore it.

mic47 8y ago
> "Significant numbers of people are expressing a sentiment through their alleged abuse of the feature, and instead of trying to channel that constructively, the company is devising ways to ignore it." What's the character of leadership who would unjustly silence group A just because significant numbers of people are expressing sentiment to silence group A? Not sure if not doing what they are doing is actually better. On another note: This is not necessarily abuse. Even with no abuse, you can have different definition of fake news, than FB have. In such case, you report, someone at FB reviews, and nothing happens. Having weight on you does not change this. The "leadership" is "ignoring you" in a same way as before. Apart from the fact that it's not "ignoring you". They just have different opinion than you. Note: I used "you" but I don't think that you necessarily have different definition than FB, if was just more convenient to formulate it this way.
rmrfrmrf 8y ago
By using "significant numbers" alone, you're vulnerable to coordinated information suppression efforts (by state actors, for example).
- WiseWeasel 8y ago
  Certainly there are more than bad faith actors abusing the feature, which could be separated out through changes to the interface.
MichaelKSpencer 8y ago
I think it boils down to regulation of AI. Only the EU seems to be challenging Silicon Valley with actual penalties and laws to keep them a bit more straight. Why can't the U.S. regulate their own companies?

mic47 8y ago

> "Significant numbers of people are expressing a sentiment through their alleged abuse of the feature, and instead of trying to channel that constructively, the company is devising ways to ignore it." What's the character of leadership who would unjustly silence group A just because significant numbers of people are expressing sentiment to silence group A? Not sure if not doing what they are doing is actually better. On another note: This is not necessarily abuse. Even with no abuse, you can have different definition of fake news, than FB have. In such case, you report, someone at FB reviews, and nothing happens. Having weight on you does not change this. The "leadership" is "ignoring you" in a same way as before. Apart from the fact that it's not "ignoring you". They just have different opinion than you. Note: I used "you" but I don't think that you necessarily have different definition than FB, if was just more convenient to formulate it this way.

rmrfrmrf 8y ago

By using "significant numbers" alone, you're vulnerable to coordinated information suppression efforts (by state actors, for example).

WiseWeasel 8y ago
Certainly there are more than bad faith actors abusing the feature, which could be separated out through changes to the interface.

MichaelKSpencer 8y ago

I think it boils down to regulation of AI. Only the EU seems to be challenging Silicon Valley with actual penalties and laws to keep them a bit more straight. Why can't the U.S. regulate their own companies?