3 ms·
There are elements of their algo that I think should be openly defined, and perhaps there should be some regulatory branch that reports to Congress that has ful
by unethical_ban 5y ago
There are elements of their algo that I think should be openly defined, and perhaps there should be some regulatory branch that reports to Congress that has full access. However, obfuscation is often necessary to countering bad actors.
- readbeard 5y agoOn the other hand, wouldn't open sourcing the algorithm help accelerate the identification of possible exploits?
- unethical_ban 5y ago"algorithm" here isn't some fancy, hard to debug code. It is the business logic of weighting tweets and how recommendations are made. There is great opportunity to abuse this by Twitter, yes. There is also a lot of money to be made. But in defense of some of that being secret, is the fact that any publicly known ruleset (with no hidden exceptions) _will_ be exploited by bad actors. Imagine if search engines told spam sites exactly why their site dropped in page rankings.
- LegitShady 5y ago>perhaps there should be some regulatory branch that reports to Congress I think only if you offer twitter users the level of first amendment protection they'd expect with a government body. Otherwise reporting to congress would be an a bold faced circumvention the first amendment. Twitter is a privately held company with no need to report to congress.