3 ms·
Your example is meaningless because the article doesn't make any kind of argument for that situation. It suggests that those filters should be more difficult to
by ivanbakel 7y ago
Your example is meaningless because the article doesn't make any kind of argument for that situation. It suggests that those filters should be more difficult to use, or completely absent - but not that they should be present and ignored. This also wasn't the direction of your original objection against "data manipulation, user interface decisions, hiding of opinions".
More generally, the article doesn't agree with your general idea that "what they like" is a well-defined concept, or that a platform is able to get a good idea of what it is. Giving a user the power to search for specific preferences doesn't mean that a platform will be able to return the best results for that user - just the results that have been searched for. What that means for the authors is that a preference search isn't necessary or meaningful to have.
- malvosenior 7y ago> It suggests that those filters should be more difficult to use, or completely absent - but not that they should be present and ignored. This is semantics. It's about intent. Does the platform intend to give the user what they want (whether they can or not is not part of my argument) or do they intend to give the user what they want the user to see based on politics. This can include taking away tools that would allow the user to look for particular preferences. I also strongly disagree with the article that people don't know what they want. I think they do, especially when it comes to mate selection.