3 ms·

>Facebook employee decides what posts to show you Here FB manually decide what constitute 'good' or 'bad' content. For example: fb employee decide trump conte

by 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