4 ms·

If we don't understand how something works and it seems to be causing negative effects perhaps we shouldn't be using said algorithms in the largest social netwo

If we don't understand how something works and it seems to be causing negative effects perhaps we shouldn't be using said algorithms in the largest social network.

dboreham 6y ago
It causes positive effects in the form of higher profits for the company.
notacoward 6y ago
I'm not actually going to disagree with that. It's a perfectly valid point of view. However, I will also add this thought, which I also expressed internally. Neutrality doesn't just happen. No matter how neutral a system it is at one point in time, people will continue gaming it and it will cease to be neutral. There must be continuous active response to maintain that neutrality. This is a lesson Google learned with SEO long ago. Passivity is not the same as neutrality, and insisting on one often makes the other impossible. That's not meant as a refutation of your point, but perhaps it's worth some time to think about how a "no algorithm" version of Facebook would actually play out. Here's your starting point: Twitter but 10x as large.
- ntsplnkv2 6y ago
  > Neutrality doesn't just happen. No matter how neutral a system it is at one point in time, people will continue gaming it and it will cease to be neutral. There must be continuous active response to maintain that neutrality. This is a scary thought - an algorithm that "decides" what neutral is, and pushes all its users towards its predetermined neutrality. All of this talk is nonsense if we can't define neutral - which we can't. If Facebook is going to be an arbiter of that, they need to be responsible for the content because they choose what content is shown and when - if it was just a timeline feed, they would bear no responsibility. Facebook wants to make all the money and not scare off customers - a clear conflict of interest.
  - notacoward 6y ago
    > if it was just a timeline feed, they would bear no responsibility. Did that work for Twitter? They've hardly been immune from criticism either, despite being ~1/10 the size of Facebook and being favored by the ruling party in the US. Chronological timelines aren't silver bullets. They're only chronological among that which is shared and there are still huge differences in how much content gets shared/like/retweeted/whatever. Those are the differences that people will exploit, leaving things only "neutral" in a narrow technical sense that has nothing to do with effect. It's naive in the extreme to think they actually solve the problem.
    - ntsplnkv2 6y ago
      I think you are quite misunderstanding the point. My point isn't that a chronological timeline fixes the problem of social media. My point is that if you are going to decide what is shown, you are making a choice, and should be responsible for that choice. It is no longer just the user's post - because you control its avenue, you are responsible for it and how it spreads, and becomes "your" speech, in this case, the algorithm's, and its company's.
      - notacoward 6y ago
        So you're suggesting that Facebook should try to absolve itself of responsibility, but not actually solve the problem? No offense, but that seems exactly opposite to where you started. We're done.

If we don't understand how something works and it seems to be causing negative effects perhaps we shouldn't be using said algorithms in the largest social network.

dboreham 6y ago

It causes positive effects in the form of higher profits for the company.

notacoward 6y ago

I'm not actually going to disagree with that. It's a perfectly valid point of view. However, I will also add this thought, which I also expressed internally. Neutrality doesn't just happen. No matter how neutral a system it is at one point in time, people will continue gaming it and it will cease to be neutral. There must be continuous active response to maintain that neutrality. This is a lesson Google learned with SEO long ago. Passivity is not the same as neutrality, and insisting on one often makes the other impossible. That's not meant as a refutation of your point, but perhaps it's worth some time to think about how a "no algorithm" version of Facebook would actually play out. Here's your starting point: Twitter but 10x as large.

ntsplnkv2 6y ago
> Neutrality doesn't just happen. No matter how neutral a system it is at one point in time, people will continue gaming it and it will cease to be neutral. There must be continuous active response to maintain that neutrality. This is a scary thought - an algorithm that "decides" what neutral is, and pushes all its users towards its predetermined neutrality. All of this talk is nonsense if we can't define neutral - which we can't. If Facebook is going to be an arbiter of that, they need to be responsible for the content because they choose what content is shown and when - if it was just a timeline feed, they would bear no responsibility. Facebook wants to make all the money and not scare off customers - a clear conflict of interest.
- notacoward 6y ago
  > if it was just a timeline feed, they would bear no responsibility. Did that work for Twitter? They've hardly been immune from criticism either, despite being ~1/10 the size of Facebook and being favored by the ruling party in the US. Chronological timelines aren't silver bullets. They're only chronological among that which is shared and there are still huge differences in how much content gets shared/like/retweeted/whatever. Those are the differences that people will exploit, leaving things only "neutral" in a narrow technical sense that has nothing to do with effect. It's naive in the extreme to think they actually solve the problem.
  - ntsplnkv2 6y ago
    I think you are quite misunderstanding the point. My point isn't that a chronological timeline fixes the problem of social media. My point is that if you are going to decide what is shown, you are making a choice, and should be responsible for that choice. It is no longer just the user's post - because you control its avenue, you are responsible for it and how it spreads, and becomes "your" speech, in this case, the algorithm's, and its company's.
    - notacoward 6y ago
      So you're suggesting that Facebook should try to absolve itself of responsibility, but not actually solve the problem? No offense, but that seems exactly opposite to where you started. We're done.