2 ms·
That would be a fair argument, were it not for the fact that every candidate is being excluded from algorithmic recommendations. Were it just one or two candid
by matheusmoreira 2mo ago
That would be a fair argument, were it not for the fact that every candidate is being excluded from algorithmic recommendations.
Were it just one or two candidates, then it would indeed be a form of "soft censorship". That doesn't seem to be the case here.
- pocksuppet 2mo agoWhat's wrong with saying that it's censoring every candidate?
- matheusmoreira 2mo agoCensorship targets subversion. Censors seek to prevent the spread of antiestablishment information and ideas. So one can hardly claim that a universal ban on algorithmic recommendation for all candidates is censorship.
- pocksuppet 2mo agoCensorship doesn't have to "target subversion" or "prevent the spread of antiestablishment information" to be censorship.
- matheusmoreira 2mo agoEven if we use an all-encompassing definition of censorship, this still doesn't quite qualify. It's just preventing the recommendation algorithms from working on the politician accounts. The accounts themselves were not censored.