3 ms·
> I do not like the idea that hard, easily proven facts can be overwhelmed by voluminous bullshit. In principle this sounds agreeable, in practice it is often
by tazjin 6y ago
> I do not like the idea that hard, easily proven facts can be overwhelmed by voluminous bullshit.
In principle this sounds agreeable, in practice it is often not that easy because things get muddied fast as soon as politics are involved.
I'm very skeptical/opposed to this particular measure, and others like it, because well-intentioned people are also fallible.
Disclaimer: I work at Alphabet, but this is strictly my personal opinion.
- Applejinx 6y agoInterestingly, I'm skeptical of Alphabet for exactly the same reasons :) I feel like regarding tech giants handling relatively unprecedented expansions of social media and broadcasting, it wasn't up to you whether politics got involved. As soon as third parties started to work out exploits to your conceptual system, ya got involved. 'The algorithm' has a lot to do with this, but at heart it's an exploit and not the algorithm itself. Until the algorithm is actually intelligent and can think about itself and what it's doing, you and the company you work for are exploitable. As such, you may feel democratization of media and the ability for individuals to broadcast and information-search is vital to societies and humanity as a whole, and you'd be right, but that's not what you're doing. So long as your work is exploitable in this way, you become partisan, you are just blind to WHO you are being partisan for. And we've seen some pretty wild consequences out of the range of possible outcomes this produces.