Loving @lessin's recent essays on feeds and algorithms and speech. I don't always agree but his thinking is nuanced and principled and worth understanding/discussing. This morning's one is a very good read.https://www.theinformation.com/articles/on-feed-ranking-and-free-speech …
-
-
I'm not sure what "moderation" means in this context. At some point you have to filter by some sieve and not show everything everyone is publishing but calling that "moderation" seems a stretch to me. Even reverse chronological sort is moderation then.
-
I think he's making a false distinction between moderation involving some direct human participation on a piece of content-by-content basis vs. moderation algorithmically (where the overarching system's incentives/goals are still chosen by humans)
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
The point is that the algos are a service to the end-reader. I I write, there should be agitation towards allowing end-users more openness & control over how they want ranking to work for them. hard problem, but right direction vs. any sort of choice by platforms themselves
-
I like the idea of giving consumers more transparency and control over how their newsfeed prioritizes content for them and listener's rights are I believe 1970s-era direction in 1Am Supreme Court law.
@morganweiland has written about this.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
If the feed was optimized for engagement and uplifting my mood (more generally mental health) then I’m all for it.
@sriramk the shift towards more healthy connection and conversation is a step in the right direction, with hundreds of more steps available in that direction.Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.