5 ms·

This is a dangerous general-purpose justification which allows mega-corporations to manipulate global information flow in any way they like. Now Google leaders

This is a dangerous general-purpose justification which allows mega-corporations to manipulate global information flow in any way they like. Now Google leadership doesn't just get to be wealthy, they get to manipulate how everyone else sees the world, with no limits or accountability, because hey everything is biased right? It may sound good because they agree with you on this particular issue. But this justification applies to any other government or corporation who can manage to seize the reins of technological power. You're making a memetic weapon that, soon, will be turned against you. No. Neutrality is a real thing and it should be upheld as a serious goal and principle. Especially when we're taking about a group with such insane amounts of unjustified and undemocratic control over other people. We need to do everything we can culturally to make that influence less unequal.

GW150914 8y ago
You’re not wrong, but at the same time what’s the solution that isn’t just a matter of the people complaining manipulating global information flow in the way they like? Most of the time behind the flashlight-under-the-chin tales of potential doom, the solution seems to be a shift to whichever political pole the speaker prefers. I’d like a less restricted flow of information, but I don’t know how to get it, and no one seems to be offering good ideas. The best I can offer is that it’s important to fight for freedom to access any source, so you can compare and contrast and draw your own conclusions. Google can dominate convenience, it they don’t actually stop you from checking other search engines. A media outlet can have a major bias, but in a free country that doesn’t censor non-state media you can pick up other sources for comparison. It’s messy, it’s work, but what are the alternatives that respects the 1st amendment? Just hand-waving some claims about “de facto monopolies” is a non-starter imo. How do we improve the situation without pretending that a given social medial or advertise company has to be regulated to death, and in a way that doesn’t just amount to, “Keep it biased, but it needs to be my preferred bias.”
jtmcmc 8y ago
I think this is a weird view of how bias works. statistical models are imperfect models and are always going to have lots of bias or variance. We typically want to bias models using domain expertise or other external factors. This is like being mad at a company for using L1 regularization
- humanrebar 8y ago
  The difference is how much practical diversity we'll have in models. With enough effective choice, the severity of biased models goes down, at least somewhat. Models biased in different directions can provide a variety of perspectives.
- _dps 8y ago
  These are different uses of the word "bias". In the statistical sense there is an objectively true right answer and "bias" refers to the difference between a model's average answer and the average true answer. It has little to do with the lay use of the word to mean the application of an inappropriate subjective value judgement in a situation with no one true answer (unless you take an extremely anthropomorphic view of statistical formulas).
komali2 8y ago
>Now Google leadership doesn't just get to be wealthy, they get to manipulate how everyone else sees the world, with no limits or accountability, because hey everything is biased right? I'd argue the same thing about political parties that directly benefit from less educated citizens, defunding education. Or, political parties that directly benefit from less minorities voting, passing voter restriction laws. Considering that the same party participating in both of the above is precisely the same party arguing for... Well I'm not sure exactly what, some kind of "fair time" thing for Google and Facebook? When we can't even get that for our talk radio shows anymore? Forget about it. If we go capitalist free market, we go full fucking capitalist free market. If conservatives are worried Google is biased against them, they should make a conservative Google.
- humanrebar 8y ago
  > I'd argue the same thing about political parties that directly benefit from less educated citizens, defunding education. Where does that come from? America does not have a problem funding education. It loves to invest in education. It's the return on investment that seems to be missing.
  - komali2 8y ago
    >Under SALT, income that paid for public schools went untaxed at the federal level. Current law allows states that raise taxes to better fund public schools to receive a deduction through SALT. The Senate bill ends that ability. As states struggle to lessen the impact of the tax bill on citizens, there will be an outsized amount of pressure on the taxes that typically help public schools. https://thinkprogress.org/taxes-schools-public-private-d89e5157d5bf/ https://thinkprogress.org/taxes-schools-public-private-d89e5... > The administration’s new “America First” budget, released Thursday, follows through on this promise by slashing funds for the Education Department by 13.5 percent, or $9.2 billion. https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/03/trumps-education-budget-revealed/519837 https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/03/trumps... Education funding at local levels can be pathetically bad. So sure, someone can look at the doe and say "that's a bloated budget!" But the local politicians sure aren't helping. Why do teachers have to buy notebooks for their kids out of their own pocket? Why do so many teachers scrape by with 30, 40k/year salaries in places where that's definitely not affordable? These problems are real and they are happening in this country. Time just did a great piece on it, I highly recommend it.

GW150914 8y ago

You’re not wrong, but at the same time what’s the solution that isn’t just a matter of the people complaining manipulating global information flow in the way they like? Most of the time behind the flashlight-under-the-chin tales of potential doom, the solution seems to be a shift to whichever political pole the speaker prefers. I’d like a less restricted flow of information, but I don’t know how to get it, and no one seems to be offering good ideas. The best I can offer is that it’s important to fight for freedom to access any source, so you can compare and contrast and draw your own conclusions. Google can dominate convenience, it they don’t actually stop you from checking other search engines. A media outlet can have a major bias, but in a free country that doesn’t censor non-state media you can pick up other sources for comparison. It’s messy, it’s work, but what are the alternatives that respects the 1st amendment? Just hand-waving some claims about “de facto monopolies” is a non-starter imo. How do we improve the situation without pretending that a given social medial or advertise company has to be regulated to death, and in a way that doesn’t just amount to, “Keep it biased, but it needs to be my preferred bias.”

jtmcmc 8y ago

I think this is a weird view of how bias works. statistical models are imperfect models and are always going to have lots of bias or variance. We typically want to bias models using domain expertise or other external factors. This is like being mad at a company for using L1 regularization

humanrebar 8y ago
The difference is how much practical diversity we'll have in models. With enough effective choice, the severity of biased models goes down, at least somewhat. Models biased in different directions can provide a variety of perspectives.
_dps 8y ago
These are different uses of the word "bias". In the statistical sense there is an objectively true right answer and "bias" refers to the difference between a model's average answer and the average true answer. It has little to do with the lay use of the word to mean the application of an inappropriate subjective value judgement in a situation with no one true answer (unless you take an extremely anthropomorphic view of statistical formulas).

komali2 8y ago

>Now Google leadership doesn't just get to be wealthy, they get to manipulate how everyone else sees the world, with no limits or accountability, because hey everything is biased right? I'd argue the same thing about political parties that directly benefit from less educated citizens, defunding education. Or, political parties that directly benefit from less minorities voting, passing voter restriction laws. Considering that the same party participating in both of the above is precisely the same party arguing for... Well I'm not sure exactly what, some kind of "fair time" thing for Google and Facebook? When we can't even get that for our talk radio shows anymore? Forget about it. If we go capitalist free market, we go full fucking capitalist free market. If conservatives are worried Google is biased against them, they should make a conservative Google.

humanrebar 8y ago
> I'd argue the same thing about political parties that directly benefit from less educated citizens, defunding education. Where does that come from? America does not have a problem funding education. It loves to invest in education. It's the return on investment that seems to be missing.
- komali2 8y ago
  >Under SALT, income that paid for public schools went untaxed at the federal level. Current law allows states that raise taxes to better fund public schools to receive a deduction through SALT. The Senate bill ends that ability. As states struggle to lessen the impact of the tax bill on citizens, there will be an outsized amount of pressure on the taxes that typically help public schools. https://thinkprogress.org/taxes-schools-public-private-d89e5157d5bf/ https://thinkprogress.org/taxes-schools-public-private-d89e5... > The administration’s new “America First” budget, released Thursday, follows through on this promise by slashing funds for the Education Department by 13.5 percent, or $9.2 billion. https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/03/trumps-education-budget-revealed/519837 https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/03/trumps... Education funding at local levels can be pathetically bad. So sure, someone can look at the doe and say "that's a bloated budget!" But the local politicians sure aren't helping. Why do teachers have to buy notebooks for their kids out of their own pocket? Why do so many teachers scrape by with 30, 40k/year salaries in places where that's definitely not affordable? These problems are real and they are happening in this country. Time just did a great piece on it, I highly recommend it.