3 ms·

Facebook doesn't show content chronologically. Their algorithm decides what people see. They may not have purposefully pushed pro genocide content, but that doe

Facebook doesn't show content chronologically. Their algorithm decides what people see. They may not have purposefully pushed pro genocide content, but that doesn't mean they aren't liable if the court finds they were negligent in building the algorithm.

ryan93 5y ago
I don’t doubt the algorithm prioritizes popular content. But how you go from that to saying the algorithm prioritizes genocidal content I don’t know.
- criddell 5y ago
  It might not be intentional, but there's a pretty good chance that it does lead to extremism. I haven't read it, but perhaps the UN report has more information. I believe it could be true because it doesn't seem that different from reports[1] a few years ago talking about how YouTube would push more and more extreme suggestions. IIRC YouTube made changes pushing people towards more mainstream content and away from small producers in part to avoid extremism. [1] https://www.theverge.com/interface/2019/4/3/18293293/youtube-extremism-criticism-bloomberg https://www.theverge.com/interface/2019/4/3/18293293/youtube...
  - nradov 5y ago
    There is no law against doing things that tend to encourage extremism. For example, it's would be perfectly legal for a communist to state in general terms that we should execute all rich people as class enemies. Now obviously that's a horrible thing to say, but it isn't illegal.
    - criddell 5y ago
      There doesn't have to be a law against something for a jury to find you responsible for damages. This is a civil suit, right?
    - beepbooptheory 5y ago
      Well, if it was a communist state there wouldn't be any rich people to execute, that's kinda the whole point.
Hokusai 5y ago
> negligent in building the algorithm Otherwise it would be a precedent for creating algorithms that break the law. BTW, you are 100% reasonable I do not understand the down votes.

ryan93 5y ago

I don’t doubt the algorithm prioritizes popular content. But how you go from that to saying the algorithm prioritizes genocidal content I don’t know.

criddell 5y ago
It might not be intentional, but there's a pretty good chance that it does lead to extremism. I haven't read it, but perhaps the UN report has more information. I believe it could be true because it doesn't seem that different from reports[1] a few years ago talking about how YouTube would push more and more extreme suggestions. IIRC YouTube made changes pushing people towards more mainstream content and away from small producers in part to avoid extremism. [1] https://www.theverge.com/interface/2019/4/3/18293293/youtube-extremism-criticism-bloomberg https://www.theverge.com/interface/2019/4/3/18293293/youtube...
- nradov 5y ago
  There is no law against doing things that tend to encourage extremism. For example, it's would be perfectly legal for a communist to state in general terms that we should execute all rich people as class enemies. Now obviously that's a horrible thing to say, but it isn't illegal.
  - criddell 5y ago
    There doesn't have to be a law against something for a jury to find you responsible for damages. This is a civil suit, right?
  - beepbooptheory 5y ago
    Well, if it was a communist state there wouldn't be any rich people to execute, that's kinda the whole point.

Hokusai 5y ago

> negligent in building the algorithm Otherwise it would be a precedent for creating algorithms that break the law. BTW, you are 100% reasonable I do not understand the down votes.