3 ms·

I don't know, but I'll paste the specific things that article is calling for: > Reveal who is paying for advertisements, how much they are paying and who is be

by sfink 5y ago

I don't know, but I'll paste the specific things that article is calling for: > Reveal who is paying for advertisements, how much they are paying and who is being targeted. > Commit to meaningful transparency of platform algorithms so we know how and what content is being amplified, to whom, and the associated impact. > Turn on by default the tools to amplify factual voices over disinformation. > Work with independent researchers to facilitate in-depth studies of the platforms’ impact on people and our societies, and what we can do to improve things. I'm at a bit of a loss to guess which of those might be triggering. But then, I agree with them. (Disclosure: I work for Mozilla too, so yeah, I'm biased. I'm a long way from the relevant policy discussions, though.) I've always had mixed feelings about that article. The whole "deplatforming" thing is kind of a red herring. The article seems to approve of deplatforming, which is something I'm generally not comfortable with, but it isn't actually about deplatforming at all. I suspect that's the part that triggers reactions, for reasons that I sympathize with even though I don't think they apply to the particular case in question.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
hn8788 5y ago
> Turn on by default the tools to amplify factual voices over disinformation. If we've learned anything over the past year, it's that tech companies have no business deciding what is factual. "We're going to decide what's true, then make sure people only hear what we want them to hear" is just deplatforming with extra steps.
- sfink 5y ago
  That's fair. If you follow the link, it's talking about Facebook reverting a temporary change that penalized "hyperpartisan" news sources. That's not quite the same as FB deciding "what is factual"; it's FB deciding what news outlets are "hyperpartisan". It's still on the same slippery slope, but it seems like the cost:benefit ratio is far better, if you keep in mind the status quo -- regardless of which side of the left/right divide you may be on, you'll probably agree that the people on the extremes are nuts. (Yes, you will have a different opinion of what is "extreme", but the hyperpartisan outlets are in a feedback loop that rewards greater extremism so there's a fairly stark separation between left/right-leaning and the extremes.)

by sfink 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

hn8788 5y ago

> Turn on by default the tools to amplify factual voices over disinformation. If we've learned anything over the past year, it's that tech companies have no business deciding what is factual. "We're going to decide what's true, then make sure people only hear what we want them to hear" is just deplatforming with extra steps.

sfink 5y ago
That's fair. If you follow the link, it's talking about Facebook reverting a temporary change that penalized "hyperpartisan" news sources. That's not quite the same as FB deciding "what is factual"; it's FB deciding what news outlets are "hyperpartisan". It's still on the same slippery slope, but it seems like the cost:benefit ratio is far better, if you keep in mind the status quo -- regardless of which side of the left/right divide you may be on, you'll probably agree that the people on the extremes are nuts. (Yes, you will have a different opinion of what is "extreme", but the hyperpartisan outlets are in a feedback loop that rewards greater extremism so there's a fairly stark separation between left/right-leaning and the extremes.)