4 ms·
The best idea ive seen is if you decide what a user sees in an algorithm way (beyond “natural” ones like chronological) you are liable for the content - you are
by conception 2mo ago
The best idea ive seen is if you decide what a user sees in an algorithm way (beyond “natural” ones like chronological) you are liable for the content - you are no longer a common carrier and can be sued for damages. That should be step 1.
- blackoil 2mo ago> beyond “natural” ones like chronological So a mail s/w that pushes up mail that it deems important?
- amelius 2mo agoNo, because mail programs can be configured by the user to turn off any algorithms that try to be smart.
- scottious 2mo agoThat kind of algorithm doesn't show you anything besides the messages in your inbox. It's never making a decision to show you X instead of Y, it's just deciding the ordering in which you see them. Modern social media is choosing from a vast pool of content and the algorithm's entire goal is to maximize engagement for monetary gain (at whatever cost to society). There's only so much "engagement maxing" you can do with an email sorting algorithm especially if the premise for an email inbox is that you'll always only ever see your emails and nothing else.
- conception 2mo agoThere are already a couple of answers for standard male programs, but if the male programs such as Gmail pushes up content to your inbox, save from Google then yes, that would be an algorithm that would qualify. I would really argue what you are describing is a filter rather than a content algorithm.