3 ms·
> which notes that more analysis is needed to understand whether the amplification is unnatural relative to user interactions Whether it’s natural or not is ir
by worrycue 5y ago
> which notes that more analysis is needed to understand whether the amplification is unnatural relative to user interactions
Whether it’s natural or not is irrelevant IMHO.
If a post fanning the flames of a religious war or ethnic cleansing is “organically popular” should the algorithm amplified it?
It should also be noted that just because something is popular doesn’t mean it’s a factually correct piece of information or a sensible course of action.
Sometimes lies and bad ideas are more (emotionally) appealing and eye catching but that doesn’t mean one should propagate them.
Reddit and HN are guilty of this too given how their vote based system works.
- cudgy 5y ago“Sometimes lies and bad ideas are more (emotionally) appealing and eye catching but that doesn’t mean one should propagate them.” How does an algorithm determine what is a lie or bad idea? Please share.
- worrycue 5y ago> How does an algorithm determine what is a lie or bad idea? Please share. I don't know. Perhaps there will never be an algorithm that can do it even "approximately" never mind accurately - OK maybe "never" is too strong a word. It doesn't change the fact that the current way we are doing things are causing problems. In the past we rely on fallible editors to filter the news. It wasn't perfect. However I think they did a better job than the algorithms of Twitter and Facebook - most editors had some common sense with regards to the effects of what they allow to go to print; the more responsible ones will do due diligence and fact check stuff before printing it (as imperfect as their ability to do so is, it's better than the no fact checking at all done by Twitter/Facebook before they amplify it to millions of people).