4 ms·
I've also wondered about this, I suspect because Facebook hired 75% of their lawyers in the last 3 months we will find out soon. I could see one argument about
by hemloc_io 6y ago
I've also wondered about this, I suspect because Facebook hired 75% of their lawyers in the last 3 months we will find out soon.
I could see one argument about how an algorithm doesn't really editorialize.
A metaphor that is often used is that social media companies is that they are more like a newsstand than an editorial board on a newspaper. A newsstand isn't under any obligation to sell all the papers available in their stand or place them in a specific order. I would expect the social media companies to say that their algorithms are closer to placing newspapers on a stand based on market conditions, not based on their personal opinions/eye. If that holds up to scrutiny we'll see.
- liaukovv 6y agoThese websites are like the proverbial 10000 monkeys generating random symbols. Tech companies can form any narrative by picking parts they promote, does that still make them not responsible for the result?
- leereeves 6y agoYes, in one sense an algorithm doesn't editorialize, not being intelligent, but humans can write an algorithm to editorialize for them. The editorial decisions are made while designing the algorithm. And if Facebook, knowing that outrage drives engagement, chooses to run an algorithm that displays the most engaging content, aren't they also choosing to display the most outrageous content?
- laurent92 6y agoThat is a good point, you not only demonstrated that choosing which comments to display is editorializing, but displaying the most outrageous content to provoke engagement is, in itself, an algorithm that incites violence.