3 ms·
> 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
by 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 agoI 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 agoSo 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.