3 ms·

I'm ok with sites working on de-radicalization by making certain content more difficult to find, but I think we need transparency in all of this. I'm weary of a

I'm ok with sites working on de-radicalization by making certain content more difficult to find, but I think we need transparency in all of this. I'm weary of a giant corporation like Google deciding what is "correct" discourse. The analog I like to bring up is the College Board devising an "adversity" score along with your SAT score. I prefer the College Board come up with a transparent methodology instead of each institution, like Harvard, having an opaque one of their own. In the future I want to see a world where your zip code doesn't determine your outcome, but some changes like this happen at a glacial pace. In a similar light I also want to see discourse become more civil over time with the rebuilding of the middle class.

kjeetgill 7y ago
While I agree I think transparency is a hard problem. Just looking at the cat and mouse game that Google has been involved in with its search algorithms and SEO. And that has maybe 20% of the implications towards freedom of speech, politics, conspiracy, and controversy. Credit scores have a similar rock, paper, scissors game between objectivity, transparency, and oversight. I think some amount of opacity in the algorithm is going to be required but maybe a published report of actions taken at a 6-12 month lag? That might give opportunity for critical press and course correction in a broader sense without nitpicking every call. I find it hard to hold Google and Facebook so accountable for addressing these problems personally when we struggle to hold our elected officials accountable for addressing them.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]