I take issue with the final off-hand comment he made about Tik Tok[0] on one of the linked twitter threads: > Also: the tiktok algorithm has decided that I am

I take issue with the final off-hand comment he made about Tik Tok[0] on one of the linked twitter threads: > Also: the tiktok algorithm has decided that I am a "foodie"; it's pretty much correct about that. Why should I suffer a more mediocre & less valuable experience? Because "democracy is at stake" because of bunch of people never learnt how to identify conspiracy theories at school? Well, it's not so great. The ability to discover preferences and adapt content could also be used by a malicious actor to discover targets; ie, for a totalitarian regime to discover dissenters. Such a regime needn't have an agreement with the social network, either; they need only use the tools made available to users and advertisers upon that network to harvest information about dissenters. It's as simple as creating a honey pot. Moreover, if an agreement exists with the social network, then the curation itself can omit undesirable content in the general case, and keep it available in the explicit case; not censoring it, per se, but ensuring that it does not receive an equitable platform. That's what many are clamoring for, isn't it? A way to selectively weed out voices and people that are undesirable. I feel like the problem is two fold: 1. That there's this assumption that somehow the tools used to harm some won't be used to harm others. 2. That the feed is necessarily worth saving. (2) is most interesting to consider, I think. Perhaps it's not. Perhaps algorithmic social media feeds aren't worth saving. 0: https://twitter.com/AlecMuffett/status/1451997185478963211 https://twitter.com/AlecMuffett/status/1451997185478963211