3 ms·

That's highlighting the difference, TV stations actively chose what to show, defaulting to rejecting. Social media is the opposite, kind of makes sense to have

by diggan 1y ago

That's highlighting the difference, TV stations actively chose what to show, defaulting to rejecting. Social media is the opposite, kind of makes sense to have different rules.

FirmwareBurner 1y ago
>Social media is the opposite Disagree here, all social media platforms have "the algorithm" which chooses what to show and to who, in order o maximize engagement and ad revenue. If they don't want to be responsible for what they show to users, maybe they should leave all that ad money on the table, but it seems like they have no moral issues cashing those cheques while outsourcing their externalities to society. It's not like Meta is scrambling for change between the couch cushions and can't invest in better human plus bot moderation and curation. But then Zuck will only be able to afford a gold trim on his yacht instead of the platinum one, and a smaller island. Oh no, how sad, how terrible. So tell me again, why do we have double standards for super wealthy social media oligopolies compared to traditional mediums?
- diggan 1y ago
  > Disagree here, all social media platforms have "the algorithm" which chooses what to show and to who, in order o maximize engagement and ad revenue. That's not true, Bluesky has "chose your own algorithm" and Mastodon even less, it's just in chronological order (or "chose your own client"), and lots of other social media sites that don't have algorithms that decide what you're seeing. Classic web forums (which I'd call social media too) also typically show content in chronological order.
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    With LLMs, the solution seems simple: the utility provides your device with a fire hose. And your agent, the author of which has some liability for what it shows you, curates it. If the company providing the fire hose also wants to supply the agent, or even lock its users into its own agent, that sums up who’s responsible.

by diggan 1y ago

That's highlighting the difference, TV stations actively chose what to show, defaulting to rejecting. Social media is the opposite, kind of makes sense to have different rules.

FirmwareBurner 1y ago

>Social media is the opposite Disagree here, all social media platforms have "the algorithm" which chooses what to show and to who, in order o maximize engagement and ad revenue. If they don't want to be responsible for what they show to users, maybe they should leave all that ad money on the table, but it seems like they have no moral issues cashing those cheques while outsourcing their externalities to society. It's not like Meta is scrambling for change between the couch cushions and can't invest in better human plus bot moderation and curation. But then Zuck will only be able to afford a gold trim on his yacht instead of the platinum one, and a smaller island. Oh no, how sad, how terrible. So tell me again, why do we have double standards for super wealthy social media oligopolies compared to traditional mediums?

diggan 1y ago
> Disagree here, all social media platforms have "the algorithm" which chooses what to show and to who, in order o maximize engagement and ad revenue. That's not true, Bluesky has "chose your own algorithm" and Mastodon even less, it's just in chronological order (or "chose your own client"), and lots of other social media sites that don't have algorithms that decide what you're seeing. Classic web forums (which I'd call social media too) also typically show content in chronological order.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  With LLMs, the solution seems simple: the utility provides your device with a fire hose. And your agent, the author of which has some liability for what it shows you, curates it. If the company providing the fire hose also wants to supply the agent, or even lock its users into its own agent, that sums up who’s responsible.