3 ms·
No that is not accurate, I am arguing that if the goal is to tweak an algorithm to reduce "harmful" information then the criteria for what is considered harmful
by fareesh 5y ago
No that is not accurate, I am arguing that if the goal is to tweak an algorithm to reduce "harmful" information then the criteria for what is considered harmful should not be narrowed down on the basis of one's personal politics.
Any sincere effort to minimize harmful information would start with astrology, superstition, religion, homeopathy and other such content - not some local USA "problems".
- specialist 5y agoThen make that argument. That our tools should empower us. That all existing recommenders disempower, or worse. That people should be in control of their own eyeballs. In our attention economy, the choice of what to show and not show are equally important. It's trivial to crowd out opposing opinions, no censorship needed. Who controls that algorithm? Certainly not us. Most of the pearl clutching over censorship, "cancel culture", blah blah blah would be resolved today by restoring the fairness doctrine (equal time). (This obvious and correct remediation will not happen so long as the outrage machine is fed by advertising.) ((Chomsky, McLuhan, Postman, many others, all made all these points, much more eloquently, repeatedly, much better than I ever could.)) > ...minimize harmful information would start with astrology... Encourage you to omit your own opinions of any particular belief system. No one cares. It's a distraction (food fight).