3 ms·
I disagree, this isn't the nuclear option, the nuclear option is forcing these platforms to have a more editorial role in the content they're serving and that c
by munk-a 6y ago
I disagree, this isn't the nuclear option, the nuclear option is forcing these platforms to have a more editorial role in the content they're serving and that comes with a whole bunch of good and a boatload of bad.
Gigantic unmoderated platforms existing like this that promote random snippets of speech to drive user engagement and ad-revenue is a thing that shouldn't exist. The problem we still haven't solved is how to specifically kill off platforms of this type without killing forums and discussion boards in general. I think there is a distinction there but I'm not certain precisely what defines it - but if anyone figures it out please let us all know!
- bobthepanda 6y agowe've had forums and discussion boards for decades now that do not have recommendation features. I don't see why we can't put that genie back in the bottle. IMO the moment you start highlighting things that people didn't explicitly ask for, it's an endorsement.
- munk-a 6y agoI think it's like Gerrymandering - yea we can all tell when it's gotten to stupid levels but the supreme court wasn't wrong to want a definition of where the line between "okay" and "bonkers" is. I personally think the decision could've been a bit more aggressive against gerrymandering but we do need some clear line to say "If you're beyond this you're doing an illegal thing" - and while we could close in on that line over time with a slow accumulation of precedent it'd be a lot cleaner to have a decent measure.