I think that's getting away from the point; just because you don't have to use youtube or Google doesn't mean it's ok for them to meddle in our elections. And if they act like publishers, not platforms, then they should be regulated as such, no?
1) its a hard question because at the heart of it is what kind of persuasion should be disincentivized/made illegal? Breitbart is conservative, they create content of that bent, it persuades people to think a certain way. But there's nothing wrong, per se, or illegal about it.
-
-
2) i think about stuff like if a hypnotist made me walk off a cliff are they charged with murder. If the kind of manipulation we are discussing could be shown as being exact enough to predictively deliver outcomes, in an election say, it's a kind of override of choice/free will.
-
3) so I am thinking that certain practices in curating content/juking algorithms that have too high of predictable manipulation is wrong/should be illegal, just like subliminal messages in advertisements is.
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.