I almost stopped reading there, as it didn't seem honest or accurate. It does get somewhat better: > For Cobbe, the risks outweigh the potential benefits. The

I almost stopped reading there, as it didn't seem honest or accurate. It does get somewhat better: > For Cobbe, the risks outweigh the potential benefits. The computer code doesn’t give us any insight into how algorithms were trained or tested, what factors or considerations went into them, or what sorts of things were prioritized in the process, so open-sourcing it may not make a meaningful difference to transparency at Twitter. Meanwhile, it could introduce some significant security risks. So really this is saying that opensourcing a selection of algorithms isn't enough. Whenever I see something that says this is a bad idea or can't be done, I see the reasons given as a TODO list of how to actually make it work. What we want is transparency of changes. What's the goal, what's being measured, what's the impact of a change.