2 ms·
You're making an interesting point which I resonate with - but I want to elaborate and crystalize my thoughts a bit more. I am a staunch supporter of civil righ
by systemvoltage 5y ago
You're making an interesting point which I resonate with - but I want to elaborate and crystalize my thoughts a bit more. I am a staunch supporter of civil rights and we should examine the extremes.
Extrema 1: Social network with everyone on the planet addicted to it, it becomes impossible to avoid. Even if one doesn't want to use it, it will become a necessity to communicate to others. Twitter is an example where it is official source of information from Government agencies to local fire department, embassies, and many politicians, etc. Recently they're requiring an account (and phone number) to access what seems to be the official channels of information for many nations. With milions if not billions of users, it is a significant chunk of the entire world's population. Just like any other industry (big oil, big tobacco), big social media and big tech need to be regulated. There is a spectrum between a private forum of 10k users and a megacorp able to control election outcomes even. What's even more eggregious is that the algorithms that govern the engagement of 1B+ users is developed by people of Silicon Valley (probably 0.000001% of US population or around ~300 people give or take). In private. Closed doors. We oughta see how this is terrifying (even if I agree with their stance and moral principles).
Extrema 2: Big tech merges with Gov in the business of law enforcement. A small party where government has absolutely no business gets interrupted by cops who were alerted by the "thought algorithms". These thought algorithms were developed by Gov + Big Tech by fusing various channels of information and it was deemed that this party is too pick-your-fav-niche-topic and cannot be tolerated. It is my business, my party, my friends and my agenda. No one should have the right to interrupt unless I am violating laws and I am granted due process.
Obviously both extremes are encroaching civil rights of people to have privacy and access to information.
- otterley 5y agoSorry, I don’t understand. Why should we engage in intellectual masturbation over hypotheticals instead of analyzing the immediate problem we have in front of our very noses? Both of these situations are largely fictional and over simplified characterizations of what’s going on. Are engagement algorithms worrisome and a problem? Sure, I’ll stipulate to that. They’re largely responsible for the tightening of social and thought circles and then amplification of racism and scientific illiteracy. Are they preventing the circulation of information outside their boundaries? No. They don’t have that kind of power. And the channels that they don’t control remain numerous and varied. There is a difference between being the default or the easiest mechanism by which information is disseminated, and being the only mechanism by which it is disseminated. This distinction matters.