4 ms·
I think you're overcomplicating it by insisting on isolating the algorithm from its owner and environment. No-one else was doing that. If you don't want to ap
by cjbprime 13y ago
I think you're overcomplicating it by insisting on isolating the algorithm from its owner and environment. No-one else was doing that.
If you don't want to apply a label to the algorithm, how about "Foo Bar's decision to run Algorithm X against Dataset Y resulted in consequences that predictably increased prejudice, so it would have been better if he hadn't done it"?
If that's okay, note that this is pretty close to what parfe said -- he's clearly upset at the fact that pg chooses to run an algorithm on Hacker News, rather than at the algorithm itself.
- vezzy-fnord 13y agoI won't comment on the efficiency of the algorithm (although it is questionable). Let's assume that it's a bad design decision. Your logic behind it being prejudiced is still faulty, as it ascribes a fallacious cause. The algorithm merely shuffles page rankings based on two criteria: upvotes and comments, both of which are user-supplied. The algorithm does not support prejudice, it simply behaves in the fashion it is programmed to. You're completely ignoring all of the mundane stories that go down due to the same factors, and cherry picking the ones about sexism.
- DanBC 13y agoThe algorithm also uses flags. Some people flag the sexism articles once the wingnits arrive because the threads are effectively useless by then.