5 ms·

What is this talk about “the algorithm,” as in Musk saying “they should open source the algorithm.” Is this the traffic boosting and suppression mechanism?

_bohm 4y ago
The algorithm that chooses what tweets populate the feed, I believe.
- moistofreason 4y ago
  And search suggestions, search results, follow/friend suggestions, push notifications, up next on YouTube or IG stories. See the work of Robert Epstein
incomingpain 4y ago
>What is this talk about “the algorithm,” as in Musk saying “they should open source the algorithm.” Is this the traffic boosting and suppression mechanism? If for example you make a post that says "Vaccines cause autism". They dont have enough humans to moderate this. They write an algorithm that generally sees that and you get shadowbanned or equivalent. What are all the subjects in which you may not talk about on twitter? Its not public knowledge. Open sourcing it means people can see the true bias.
- Tehchops 4y ago
  It's not biased to moderate something like "vaccines cause autism". It's been legally and scientifically established as outright misinformation. The genesis of that theory was a disgraced researcher who pushed fraudulent claims with misrepresented data. The paper was retracted for "scientific misconduct". And yet now moderating false claims that have a detrimental effect on public health outcomes is seen as a "leftist government conspiracy".
  - adventured 4y ago
    > It's not biased to moderate something like "vaccines cause autism". It is biased. As is any and all moderation, inherently. Biased toward science. A bias toward the rational is a positive, healthy bias. Rather than cowering about bias, Twitter should very openly and very aggressively stake out a clear and biased position; ie, this is our ground: we're pro science, pro vaccines, and we're going to hold that ground, period (whether anyone else likes it or not, and our algorithms will bias this way accordingly).
    - Tehchops 4y ago
      Well sure, but in the context of this discussion "bias" implies political.
    - incomingpain 4y ago
      I dont mind this position. Ultimately it needs to be open and free to discuss. By saying this is offlimits, the cat and mouse game begins and we invent new words that will generally be understood in their place.
  - moistofreason 4y ago
    Ok, but where is the line drawn and who decides where it is drawn? The point of Musk advocating to open source the algorithm is to provide transparency on this. E.g. not all issues are as cut and dry as your example.
  - incomingpain 4y ago
    >It's not biased to moderate something like "vaccines cause autism". I surrender. I agree, we absolutely should be doing something. The point elon is planning with the open sourcing is to simply make it public. I figure most political folks wont really argue over the autism thing. >It's been legally and scientifically established as outright misinformation. The genesis of that theory was a disgraced researcher who pushed fraudulent claims with misrepresented data. The paper was retracted for "scientific misconduct". Here is the interesting thing. Do we fix the conversation by banning people from talking about it? When you tear out a man's tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you're only telling the world that you fear what he might say. -George R. R. Martin Or would it be better to allow people to talk about it and just post a warning that it's discredited and link? >And yet now moderating false claims that have a detrimental effect on public health outcomes is seen as a "leftist government conspiracy". I chose vaccines cause autism because it's a great example of something that is harmful to society. Something that might be worth censoring but when you block or even secretly shadowban this subject. It even makes me want to know more. Sure looks like conspiracy to me. But I also kind of point to NYTimes and incoming CNN ceo who are telling their journalists to break out of their twitter echo chambers. twitter censors far more than this subject. The anticonservative bias that twitter creates also ends up forming echo chambers for the left. Who then dont see criticism of their work. The consequence that NYTimes for example sees is that they stop reporting properly, they report on their echo chamber. They then fundamentally break journalism ethics rules.
formerkrogemp 4y ago
People speak of "the algorithm" as if it were an animal spirit or American god to appease and to implore. I suppose this is our zeitgeist.
- tupac_speedrap 4y ago
  It basically is at this point. Every time one of these companies like Facebook, Google, Twitter...etc get caught doing something dodgy they just say it was the algorithm's fault and call it a day. Like when Facebook was selling ads to anti-semites or Google just banning people from their services for undisclosed reasons.
  - formerkrogemp 4y ago
    Or they pay 0.0001% of revenue as a fine after a months or years long regulatory case comes down with a fine and no admission of wrongdoing or criminality.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

_bohm 4y ago

The algorithm that chooses what tweets populate the feed, I believe.

moistofreason 4y ago
And search suggestions, search results, follow/friend suggestions, push notifications, up next on YouTube or IG stories. See the work of Robert Epstein

incomingpain 4y ago

>What is this talk about “the algorithm,” as in Musk saying “they should open source the algorithm.” Is this the traffic boosting and suppression mechanism? If for example you make a post that says "Vaccines cause autism". They dont have enough humans to moderate this. They write an algorithm that generally sees that and you get shadowbanned or equivalent. What are all the subjects in which you may not talk about on twitter? Its not public knowledge. Open sourcing it means people can see the true bias.

Tehchops 4y ago
It's not biased to moderate something like "vaccines cause autism". It's been legally and scientifically established as outright misinformation. The genesis of that theory was a disgraced researcher who pushed fraudulent claims with misrepresented data. The paper was retracted for "scientific misconduct". And yet now moderating false claims that have a detrimental effect on public health outcomes is seen as a "leftist government conspiracy".
- adventured 4y ago
  > It's not biased to moderate something like "vaccines cause autism". It is biased. As is any and all moderation, inherently. Biased toward science. A bias toward the rational is a positive, healthy bias. Rather than cowering about bias, Twitter should very openly and very aggressively stake out a clear and biased position; ie, this is our ground: we're pro science, pro vaccines, and we're going to hold that ground, period (whether anyone else likes it or not, and our algorithms will bias this way accordingly).
  - Tehchops 4y ago
    Well sure, but in the context of this discussion "bias" implies political.
  - incomingpain 4y ago
    I dont mind this position. Ultimately it needs to be open and free to discuss. By saying this is offlimits, the cat and mouse game begins and we invent new words that will generally be understood in their place.
- moistofreason 4y ago
  Ok, but where is the line drawn and who decides where it is drawn? The point of Musk advocating to open source the algorithm is to provide transparency on this. E.g. not all issues are as cut and dry as your example.
- incomingpain 4y ago
  >It's not biased to moderate something like "vaccines cause autism". I surrender. I agree, we absolutely should be doing something. The point elon is planning with the open sourcing is to simply make it public. I figure most political folks wont really argue over the autism thing. >It's been legally and scientifically established as outright misinformation. The genesis of that theory was a disgraced researcher who pushed fraudulent claims with misrepresented data. The paper was retracted for "scientific misconduct". Here is the interesting thing. Do we fix the conversation by banning people from talking about it? When you tear out a man's tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you're only telling the world that you fear what he might say. -George R. R. Martin Or would it be better to allow people to talk about it and just post a warning that it's discredited and link? >And yet now moderating false claims that have a detrimental effect on public health outcomes is seen as a "leftist government conspiracy". I chose vaccines cause autism because it's a great example of something that is harmful to society. Something that might be worth censoring but when you block or even secretly shadowban this subject. It even makes me want to know more. Sure looks like conspiracy to me. But I also kind of point to NYTimes and incoming CNN ceo who are telling their journalists to break out of their twitter echo chambers. twitter censors far more than this subject. The anticonservative bias that twitter creates also ends up forming echo chambers for the left. Who then dont see criticism of their work. The consequence that NYTimes for example sees is that they stop reporting properly, they report on their echo chamber. They then fundamentally break journalism ethics rules.

formerkrogemp 4y ago

People speak of "the algorithm" as if it were an animal spirit or American god to appease and to implore. I suppose this is our zeitgeist.

tupac_speedrap 4y ago
It basically is at this point. Every time one of these companies like Facebook, Google, Twitter...etc get caught doing something dodgy they just say it was the algorithm's fault and call it a day. Like when Facebook was selling ads to anti-semites or Google just banning people from their services for undisclosed reasons.
- formerkrogemp 4y ago
  Or they pay 0.0001% of revenue as a fine after a months or years long regulatory case comes down with a fine and no admission of wrongdoing or criminality.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]