5 ms·
These articles just show how detached people are thinking the "on an iphone" is somehow new and never before seen. They've fallen prey to their own marketing id
by elmerfud 4y ago
These articles just show how detached people are thinking the "on an iphone" is somehow new and never before seen. They've fallen prey to their own marketing ideology.
What "big tech" is doing is not new it's the same game that companies have been doing since there have been companies. Common carrier status was always about not being party to messages of your users. Big tech is absolutely party to the messages of their users, even private ones. We all know it, they do it intentionally and even the stodgy old people on the supreme court can clearly see their game.
If you're going to "control the narrative" by choosing what people see and what the don't, then you need to be responsible for what is displayed. This isn't and opt-in level of control there's not even an opt-out. They blatantly decide what the news is and feed it to you, no matter what you try and do to search around it.
It has always blown my mind that google maps has no option to show all the points of interest no matter how far you zoom in. Just one tiny example of a service populated by users but then controlled by the machine.
Be a common carrier or don't be. This manipulation game needs to end. I don't know what the court will do but hopefully provide guidelines on what common carrier is.
- l33t233372 4y agoHow can you expect a service like Youtube to operate with “no” algorithm(the word “no” is in quotation marks because even a strictly chronological feed would be an algorithm)? You would actually prefer to get on Youtube and see the thousands of awful videos uploaded before the one that’s related to what you’ve recently watched?
- toomuchtodo 4y agoThey might not be able to operate. That’s the point. In some cases, it might kill the service (and whether that’s desirable is going to be a function of your viewpoint).
- l33t233372 4y agoYoutube is a great service and if the law will make it go away, we must change the law.
- rnd0 4y agoThat's highly debateable. From my point of view youtube is a disinformation vector which is far prone to indoctrinating people into extremist views because of the way the algorithm acts. From my point of view, I think that losing it would be a net win for society as a whole. I use youtube -daily. But I see it for what it is.
- elmerfud 4y agoNo "algorithm" isn't no indexing method, try not to confuse the two things. I put algorithm in quotes because big tech is using an algorithm to force feed a narrative to people not just index content. See the maps example. Libraries seem to function just fine and people find things with indexing but without force feeding a narrative.
- foxyv 4y agoTo be honest? Yeah! I would love to see curation by the users and content creators instead of YouTube itself. I wish I could sort my subscriptions into categories and just see the newest content from my subscriptions. I would love to organically discover new channels through suggestions by YouTube communities instead of a faceless algorithm optimized for advertiser friendliness. That's how YouTube started and it worked great. Now I have to fight the site to find content because it's been demonetized and YouTube won't suggest it anymore...
- scott00 4y agoThis case has literally nothing to do with common carrier status. Neither side is claiming that Google or Twitter are common carriers.