I actually think that’s a big statement. They’re now like saying that their literal company mission — make the world more open and connected — was partly wrong.
-
-
Replying to @kimmaicutler @MattZeitlin
Should we make it more closed and disconnected?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ehn @MattZeitlin
I mean, putting the entire world on a giant game of Telephone is... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_whispers … (also I didn’t know this game was called “Chinese whispers” outside the US)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @kimmaicutler @MattZeitlin
Isn't that all forms of communication ever?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ehn @MattZeitlin
No, you can change the architecture of the system to promote some behaviors and disincentivize others. Example: https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/facebooks-whatsapp-limits-users-ability-to-forward-messages-11548096022 …
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @kimmaicutler @MattZeitlin
So I guess this makes it a more disconnected game of telephone (in Swedish we call it the whisper game)
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ehn @MattZeitlin
Or just putting in some brake pads so people have to do a little more thinking before re-sharing something.... or creating more penalties to deliberately misinforming people repeatedly (eg treating it like a spam problem)
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @kimmaicutler @MattZeitlin
That last part would be an awesome and highly valuable feature, product or even company. Pretty darn hard, though. Building the classifier is one thing, but agreeing on epistemology? We've been fighting over it for ~3000 years.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ehn @MattZeitlin
FB is probably already tacitly doing it. Their fact checker program is probably actually a bunch of humans training a large ML system to down or uprank news sources.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @kimmaicutler @MattZeitlin
I think you're right. But it interesting that many who seem to have zero trust in FB and Zuck encourage them to introduce all kinds of possible biases when determining who gets heard and who gets muted. (Not saying that's you.)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
There is no unbiased version of the system that is possible. If the system is directed around maximizing engagement, that will incentivize certain behaviors. If it’s directed around something else, it will promote that kind of behavior.
-
-
Replying to @kimmaicutler @MattZeitlin
Sure, but there is a difference between rewarding posts based on user activity, where it's the users biases that decide, or on the content itself. The latter is much more contentious and forces the platform to take a stance. I like an Internet that behaves as a common carrier.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
If trying to stop fake news, say, do you down-rank any source that claims there is a god or other supernatural being?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - 1 more reply
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.