3 ms·
yes, I agree. Whatever we do, we can't eliminate bias. And, adding to that, as a society can we force a private company to change their algorithm to better suit
by ayushchat 5y ago
yes, I agree.
Whatever we do, we can't eliminate bias.
And, adding to that, as a society can we force a private company to change their algorithm to better suit our taste?
I am not sure we can.
There needs to be a larger debate on this. Maybe the courts are the right place for such a debate.
- nradov 5y agoThe courts are specifically not a place for debate. Courts are supposed to interpret the law independent of public opinion. Debates should occur in the legislative branch of government. I don't think it's reasonable to compel private companies to change their search ranking algorithms because that would violate fundamental free speech principles and there is no objective standard for bias. A better solution would be to impose stricter limits on market share and dominance even on companies that aren't monopolies. That would preserve competition and give consumers real choices on which services to use.
- ayushchat 5y agoYes, my bad, you are right. Courts are not the place for debate, parliaments and assemblies are. Apart from that, I think this might turn it into the classic socialism vs capitalism debate. Which I don't want to get into Just closing out with this cool video, watch it if you haven't, I always go back to this when I get into such debates. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwqnRYPcrl0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwqnRYPcrl0
- dragonwriter 5y ago> The courts are specifically not a place for debate uh, no, debate is literally 100% of the purpose of courts.
- psd1 5y ago...about interpretation of existing law and of material facts. Not about "what we should do".