5 ms·

This might be overly reductive, but I read this as "right" tweets and figures generate more collective user engagement than "left" tweets and figures, though th

This might be overly reductive, but I read this as "right" tweets and figures generate more collective user engagement than "left" tweets and figures, though the underlying algorithm(s) is blind to the substance - political or otherwise - of the message. The proposed change would then introduce conscious political bias to ensure an even representation of the spectrum... but I wonder how we define even? Perhaps we can base it on user's constituencies?

netcan 5y ago
I think this is the type of question we're left with, usually, after analysing the behaviour of any ranking/amplification algorithm. The reductive conclusion is either "right wing tweets are more engaging" or "the algorithm amplifies right wing tweets." A reduction implies that either the algorithm or users are neutral. Without algorithmic bias, users will amplify both equally. Or conversely, results reflect user bias/preference/behaviour because the software is unbiased. Like a lot of reductions, these are true but incomplete. We know damn well that software design will affect the popularity of various post types. Most forums have active mitigation strategies to avoid certain types of content from becoming overabundant. HN has the "middlebrow dismissal" rule, for example. We also have no reason to believe that users, on average, are "unbiased" or that any specific outcome represents and unbiased reflection collective user views. There's no doubt that the character of HN's homepage, or reddit, FB & Twitter reflection of both moderation/software decisions and "organic" user preferences. There's no hard line between them. OTOH, this doesn't mean "nothing to see here." This is also not unique to social media. You can clearly see that specific traditional media stations/publications favour specific views. More importantly, they amplify certain stories, cover certain candidates, and have many other preferences and biases that have big political impacts. Take this example on a recent US bill's media coverage: https://thecolumn.substack.com/p/on-reconciliation-bill-cnn-aired https://thecolumn.substack.com/p/on-reconciliation-bill-cnn-... Here, instead of "left vs right," they distinguish between "horse race coverage" and "substance." 91.3% of CNN's coverage was found to be "horse race coverage?" Is that a bias? Pattern? Editorial Decision." Reflection of user interest? It sure does affect politics though. Frames the whole debate.
im3w1l 5y ago
Make you wonder what kind of engagement it is. Likes? Shares? Agreement? Discussion? Outraged shouting?
raxxorrax 5y ago
It would not work as both "sides" claim the other to be over-represented. In truth they want to silence each other if we are honest. I don't like Twitter making content decision but I guess that ship has sailed long ago for any large social media platform.
- cudgy 5y ago
  Oh well … the ship has sailed … nothing can be done about it.

netcan 5y ago

I think this is the type of question we're left with, usually, after analysing the behaviour of any ranking/amplification algorithm. The reductive conclusion is either "right wing tweets are more engaging" or "the algorithm amplifies right wing tweets." A reduction implies that either the algorithm or users are neutral. Without algorithmic bias, users will amplify both equally. Or conversely, results reflect user bias/preference/behaviour because the software is unbiased. Like a lot of reductions, these are true but incomplete. We know damn well that software design will affect the popularity of various post types. Most forums have active mitigation strategies to avoid certain types of content from becoming overabundant. HN has the "middlebrow dismissal" rule, for example. We also have no reason to believe that users, on average, are "unbiased" or that any specific outcome represents and unbiased reflection collective user views. There's no doubt that the character of HN's homepage, or reddit, FB & Twitter reflection of both moderation/software decisions and "organic" user preferences. There's no hard line between them. OTOH, this doesn't mean "nothing to see here." This is also not unique to social media. You can clearly see that specific traditional media stations/publications favour specific views. More importantly, they amplify certain stories, cover certain candidates, and have many other preferences and biases that have big political impacts. Take this example on a recent US bill's media coverage: https://thecolumn.substack.com/p/on-reconciliation-bill-cnn-aired https://thecolumn.substack.com/p/on-reconciliation-bill-cnn-... Here, instead of "left vs right," they distinguish between "horse race coverage" and "substance." 91.3% of CNN's coverage was found to be "horse race coverage?" Is that a bias? Pattern? Editorial Decision." Reflection of user interest? It sure does affect politics though. Frames the whole debate.

im3w1l 5y ago

Make you wonder what kind of engagement it is. Likes? Shares? Agreement? Discussion? Outraged shouting?

raxxorrax 5y ago

It would not work as both "sides" claim the other to be over-represented. In truth they want to silence each other if we are honest. I don't like Twitter making content decision but I guess that ship has sailed long ago for any large social media platform.

cudgy 5y ago
Oh well … the ship has sailed … nothing can be done about it.