4 ms·

The problem I see here is that there is no alternative to an algorithm. What do you expect Twitter to do? Twitter's users want to see the content that is most i

The problem I see here is that there is no alternative to an algorithm. What do you expect Twitter to do? Twitter's users want to see the content that is most interesting to them, and to do that Twitter has to design algorithms to achieve that. Maybe that algorithm is literally just "Here's everything anyone you follow has posted chronologically" - but that's got problems, firstly obviously you're more interested in what some people have to say than others so you're going to have a low average value reading all the tweets, secondly it'll incentivize people spamming the timeline because they know their tweets will be buried by other tweets if people aren't reading live and that will damage how much influence they have. So, I don't think Twitter using such a simple algorithm would be good and I think a competitor would likely beat it with a better algorithm. So a state where Twitter doesn't use algorithms is likely to tend to a state where twitter is bankrupt and some other company is using algorithms. I think it's pretty clear you need some algorithm. Ok, so maybe the line we draw is that we don't make value judgements on the content and only prioritize by meta data. Ie, your algorithm looks at engagement, reach etc. This is basically what Facebook did, and what they found was that it was much easier for people to produce highly engaging content by playing on peoples fears, misrepresenting information, and all the classic "click bait" tricks. High value content is expensive and time consuming to make, and since it doesn't get rewarded by the algorithm it gets priced out of the market. So sure, it's possible to draw that line, but again, I don't think that that's actually a neutral position, we know the type of content that benefits from content neutral algorithms. And remember - engagement at the end of the day is just a way of measuring what impact the content of the article is having, you're saying you want to promote content that is "engaging" as opposed to other priorities that you might have such as "truthful" or "High quality". It's difficult not to think that what we're actually seeing is that the beneficiaries of the previous algorithms - the voices that were raised up by the facebook style algorithm are simply angry now that the algorithm has changed and not to their benefit. The author cites how popular their facebook pages used to be, but that wasn't a neutral algorithm either - they were just happy when the algorithm was rigged to benefit them rather than harm them.

abdullahkhalids 5y ago
From a user-benefiting pov there is quite a simple solution. Just let the user pick their algorithm - including third party algorithms. Of course, that will never be allowed because it will likely reduce revenues.
acdha 5y ago
I don't think you're entirely wrong but I think there is a big question of how prone an algorithm is to gaming and what measures the company provides to adjust it. For example, a simple chronological feed has drawbacks — your buddy in Europe posted something while you were asleep — but it also has advantages like not directing people to click-bait. The fake news glut came from several areas where the major social media companies really weren't even trying: 1. Provide true negative feedback mechanisms: Facebook, Twitter, Google, etc. rewarded content which got clicks without having corrective mechanisms which actually worked. That provided a big incentive to crank out cheap agitprop since there was basically no way where you'd lose money as long as your costs were low enough. That also lead to a glut of ripping off other people's content, which appeared to be pretty safe as long as you weren't ripping off a major media company. They have a bit of a feedback loop now but enforcement is still quite lax and the algorithms will continue promoting things to strangers even after a lot of people mark them as junk or block the account. Not promoting things on behalf of your friends (e.g. Twitter making Likes public) or otherwise tamping down the “recommend this to other people” signal would be a good way to reduce spread without preventing anyone from seeing content they're actively looking for. 2. People could open accounts pretending to be media sources or authoritative in some way and on the off chance that the companies eventually did something, they'd just re-open a new one. A lot of the impact of fake news sites could have been reduced by requiring non-personal accounts to list verified ownership, country, etc. and other pages owned by the same entity — that'd both make it easier for people to see that Red White and Blue Breaking News is actually some random person in Macedonia and it'd increase the consequences of breaking the rules if you had to, say, burn something like a Dun & Bradstreet number rather than just creating a new page or getting another burner email address. It certainly wouldn't solve every problem but increasing the costs of bulk content-mill operations would make that business less profitable without preventing more legitimate businesses.
teknopaul 5y ago
N.B. Caitlin Johnstone journalistic style is click-baity. She might be being banned by humans. At first glance what she writes _looks like_ politically motivated junk. Potentially a human is not reading her articles in depth or perhaps they are, and it's still getting banned.
EricE 5y ago
>The problem I see here is that there is no alternative to an algorithm. That's not what she is arguing at all. She's pointing out the algorithms have intentionally been tainted. Biased. Censorship by omission. Algorithms aren't independent things, they are programmed and share the biases of their programmers. Indeed I think she sums it very eloquently here: "You've probably noticed this if you've tried to search YouTube for videos which don't align with the official narratives of western governments and media lately. That search function used to work like magic; like it was reading your mind. Now it's almost impossible to find the information you're looking for unless you're trying to find out what the US State Department wants you to think." If you happen to not have experienced that, I might point out you just might be in the right bubble to where it's not yet noticeable for you, or maybe not happened enough to be more than an annoyance easy to write off as something else. Perfect example: "The author cites how popular their facebook pages used to be, but that wasn't a neutral algorithm either - they were just happy when the algorithm was rigged to benefit them rather than harm them." When algorithms that used to distribute attention fairly uniformly now are biased to certain political ideologies to the extent that even the size of these services can't hide it - when does that become more than the mere coincidence you are trying to pass it off as? In your mind is there ever a threshold that would no longer pass a sniff test? I have long noticed the usefulness of search features on the major services has dramatically declined, especially if the topics are even remotely political. So I no longer rely on search, especially for anything related to current events. I'm back to where I was pre-Google - a large, diverse group of sources I routinely visit. I've rediscovered the joys of RSS and self-hosted aggregation - it greatly helps one do this in a pretty trivial manner. No wonder Google first took over RSS with Reader then killed it. With such functionality I don't need some all knowing centralized "cloud" of knowledge to consult - I can easily gather information on my own and make my own decisions. Heaven forbid that be allowed to continue. It's why it's past time for people to take control back themselves. It's a little more work, but well worth it if you really care about getting an unfiltered view of the world. I'm constantly amazed by how many times a topic will come up in conversation as being new and I'll usually have heard about it days if not weeks before - and often with significantly more detail and context. And it's not really that new - before the internet you could spot people who relied on TV/Radio, those who read newspapers too, and those who routinely dug deeper into long form magazine or other articles. What's really insidious about the Internet is it gives a great illusion to having unfettered access to all information without really living up to it in a way most people will never notice. Until something they are passionate and have detailed knowledge of gets distorted. Then it sticks out like a sore thumb. The sunglasses in *They Live*, if you will. Just wait - censorship never ends. Sooner or later you will have your own jolt. The real question is will it be too late to do something about it? "The avalanche has already started - it's too late for the pebbles to vote" Tolerance or excuses for this behavior just enables it to be more firmly entrenched.

abdullahkhalids 5y ago

From a user-benefiting pov there is quite a simple solution. Just let the user pick their algorithm - including third party algorithms. Of course, that will never be allowed because it will likely reduce revenues.

acdha 5y ago

I don't think you're entirely wrong but I think there is a big question of how prone an algorithm is to gaming and what measures the company provides to adjust it. For example, a simple chronological feed has drawbacks — your buddy in Europe posted something while you were asleep — but it also has advantages like not directing people to click-bait. The fake news glut came from several areas where the major social media companies really weren't even trying: 1. Provide true negative feedback mechanisms: Facebook, Twitter, Google, etc. rewarded content which got clicks without having corrective mechanisms which actually worked. That provided a big incentive to crank out cheap agitprop since there was basically no way where you'd lose money as long as your costs were low enough. That also lead to a glut of ripping off other people's content, which appeared to be pretty safe as long as you weren't ripping off a major media company. They have a bit of a feedback loop now but enforcement is still quite lax and the algorithms will continue promoting things to strangers even after a lot of people mark them as junk or block the account. Not promoting things on behalf of your friends (e.g. Twitter making Likes public) or otherwise tamping down the “recommend this to other people” signal would be a good way to reduce spread without preventing anyone from seeing content they're actively looking for. 2. People could open accounts pretending to be media sources or authoritative in some way and on the off chance that the companies eventually did something, they'd just re-open a new one. A lot of the impact of fake news sites could have been reduced by requiring non-personal accounts to list verified ownership, country, etc. and other pages owned by the same entity — that'd both make it easier for people to see that Red White and Blue Breaking News is actually some random person in Macedonia and it'd increase the consequences of breaking the rules if you had to, say, burn something like a Dun & Bradstreet number rather than just creating a new page or getting another burner email address. It certainly wouldn't solve every problem but increasing the costs of bulk content-mill operations would make that business less profitable without preventing more legitimate businesses.

teknopaul 5y ago

N.B. Caitlin Johnstone journalistic style is click-baity. She might be being banned by humans. At first glance what she writes _looks like_ politically motivated junk. Potentially a human is not reading her articles in depth or perhaps they are, and it's still getting banned.

EricE 5y ago

>The problem I see here is that there is no alternative to an algorithm. That's not what she is arguing at all. She's pointing out the algorithms have intentionally been tainted. Biased. Censorship by omission. Algorithms aren't independent things, they are programmed and share the biases of their programmers. Indeed I think she sums it very eloquently here: "You've probably noticed this if you've tried to search YouTube for videos which don't align with the official narratives of western governments and media lately. That search function used to work like magic; like it was reading your mind. Now it's almost impossible to find the information you're looking for unless you're trying to find out what the US State Department wants you to think." If you happen to not have experienced that, I might point out you just might be in the right bubble to where it's not yet noticeable for you, or maybe not happened enough to be more than an annoyance easy to write off as something else. Perfect example: "The author cites how popular their facebook pages used to be, but that wasn't a neutral algorithm either - they were just happy when the algorithm was rigged to benefit them rather than harm them." When algorithms that used to distribute attention fairly uniformly now are biased to certain political ideologies to the extent that even the size of these services can't hide it - when does that become more than the mere coincidence you are trying to pass it off as? In your mind is there ever a threshold that would no longer pass a sniff test? I have long noticed the usefulness of search features on the major services has dramatically declined, especially if the topics are even remotely political. So I no longer rely on search, especially for anything related to current events. I'm back to where I was pre-Google - a large, diverse group of sources I routinely visit. I've rediscovered the joys of RSS and self-hosted aggregation - it greatly helps one do this in a pretty trivial manner. No wonder Google first took over RSS with Reader then killed it. With such functionality I don't need some all knowing centralized "cloud" of knowledge to consult - I can easily gather information on my own and make my own decisions. Heaven forbid that be allowed to continue. It's why it's past time for people to take control back themselves. It's a little more work, but well worth it if you really care about getting an unfiltered view of the world. I'm constantly amazed by how many times a topic will come up in conversation as being new and I'll usually have heard about it days if not weeks before - and often with significantly more detail and context. And it's not really that new - before the internet you could spot people who relied on TV/Radio, those who read newspapers too, and those who routinely dug deeper into long form magazine or other articles. What's really insidious about the Internet is it gives a great illusion to having unfettered access to all information without really living up to it in a way most people will never notice. Until something they are passionate and have detailed knowledge of gets distorted. Then it sticks out like a sore thumb. The sunglasses in *They Live*, if you will. Just wait - censorship never ends. Sooner or later you will have your own jolt. The real question is will it be too late to do something about it? "The avalanche has already started - it's too late for the pebbles to vote" Tolerance or excuses for this behavior just enables it to be more firmly entrenched.