4 ms·

People develop algorithms. They aren't some neutral force of nature, like a tornado. These are choices.

matz1 6y ago
yes but is the algorithms include : spread only bad content ? I doubt so, the algorithms may be : spread content that increase engagement, without making explicit judgement whether the content is 'good' or 'bad'.
- chopin24 6y ago
  Intention is besides the point. The only thing that matters is impact. For example, in US case law, there is the concept of Involuntary manslaughter: killing as the result of negligent or reckless actions.
- Karunamon 6y ago
  That doesn't matter at the end of the day. Facebook employee decides what posts to show you → Facebook Inc is responsible for picking and choosing content (exercising editorial control) → Facebook is a publisher. vs Facebook employees write post engagement algorithm → Facebook computer program decides what posts to show you -> Facebook Inc is responsible for picking and choosing content (exercising editorial control) → Facebook is a publisher.
  - matz1 6y ago
    >Facebook employee decides what posts to show you Here FB manually decide what constitute 'good' or 'bad' content. For example: fb employee decide trump content is 'bad' thus not allowing it. >Facebook employees write post engagement algorithm Here depending on how the algorithm works, it may not make a judgment whether the content is 'good' or 'bad' as long as it drive engagement. So here 'good' and 'bad' content can spread equally. Here if its algorithmic then trump content doesn't depend on whether someone decide its 'good' or 'bad' but merely the engagement metric. I would support the later, even if the content that finally show up is something 'bad' because here fb is merely act as tools.
    - Karunamon 6y ago
      The metrics they use for exercising editorial control do not matter for this line of logic. The fact that they are exercising editorial control, promoting some posts, censoring others, rather than neutrally carrying the content people wish to send (like a phone company or an ISP) makes them a publisher. The alternative is to allow these companies to hide behind "but we didn't do it, the algorithm did". The algorithm is an agent of the company and they are responsible for its behavior like any other employee.
      - matz1 6y ago
        >The metrics they use for exercising editorial control do not matter for this line of logic. Sure it may not matter to you but it matter to other people including me. How they publish it mater (at least to me). I would support one but not the other

yes but is the algorithms include : spread only bad content ? I doubt so, the algorithms may be : spread content that increase engagement, without making explicit judgement whether the content is 'good' or 'bad'.

chopin24 6y ago
Intention is besides the point. The only thing that matters is impact. For example, in US case law, there is the concept of Involuntary manslaughter: killing as the result of negligent or reckless actions.
Karunamon 6y ago
That doesn't matter at the end of the day. Facebook employee decides what posts to show you → Facebook Inc is responsible for picking and choosing content (exercising editorial control) → Facebook is a publisher. vs Facebook employees write post engagement algorithm → Facebook computer program decides what posts to show you -> Facebook Inc is responsible for picking and choosing content (exercising editorial control) → Facebook is a publisher.
- matz1 6y ago
  >Facebook employee decides what posts to show you Here FB manually decide what constitute 'good' or 'bad' content. For example: fb employee decide trump content is 'bad' thus not allowing it. >Facebook employees write post engagement algorithm Here depending on how the algorithm works, it may not make a judgment whether the content is 'good' or 'bad' as long as it drive engagement. So here 'good' and 'bad' content can spread equally. Here if its algorithmic then trump content doesn't depend on whether someone decide its 'good' or 'bad' but merely the engagement metric. I would support the later, even if the content that finally show up is something 'bad' because here fb is merely act as tools.
  - Karunamon 6y ago
    The metrics they use for exercising editorial control do not matter for this line of logic. The fact that they are exercising editorial control, promoting some posts, censoring others, rather than neutrally carrying the content people wish to send (like a phone company or an ISP) makes them a publisher. The alternative is to allow these companies to hide behind "but we didn't do it, the algorithm did". The algorithm is an agent of the company and they are responsible for its behavior like any other employee.
    - matz1 6y ago
      >The metrics they use for exercising editorial control do not matter for this line of logic. Sure it may not matter to you but it matter to other people including me. How they publish it mater (at least to me). I would support one but not the other