3 ms·
So you would say that if FB fails to censor a video titled "vaccines cause autism" that drives engagement, they are more morally culpable for the content than i
by capitalsigma 4y ago
So you would say that if FB fails to censor a video titled "vaccines cause autism" that drives engagement, they are more morally culpable for the content than if Google spends TPU cycles rendering the Imagen prompt input: "detailed video about why vaccines cause autism, scientific, realistic, in the style of a public health announcement"
?
- Gigachad 4y agoIMO facebook should stop "engagement based" recommendation engines until they have the ability to stop them being abused. Change the platform to show chronological posts from things users have subscribed to. They could perhaps have a curated selection of content that FB employees have screened to be good for general distribution. There is a world of difference between someone manually seeking out and subscribing to a misinformation source than FB automatically suggesting it to them.
- capitalsigma 4y agoThat is definitely one opinion that you can hold about Facebook but it's unclear to me how it relates to this post about Google's new generative model
- Gigachad 4y agoI don't think google is responsible for the content created any more than Windows is for running the program or your ISP is for serving it. Promotion and discovery are the places where moderation and responsibility come in.
- raxxorraxor 4y agoThey did ban such videos and now people take videos like this seriously. Don't be so naive. This is a PR message, nothing else. The whole banning spree did more damage to vaccine acceptance than flat earther and lizard people together. It isn't even comparable. Because of course they ended up censoring legitimate criticism and scientific data. That was inevitable, no matter how well intended. Now they made themselves unreliable because someone on the internet was crazy.