There are going to be a 1000 different ideas of "humanistic values" that platforms "should" conform to. How do we sort them out? Maybe we need *gasp* a systemic interaction model where all actors can contend? Sure, some have more agency than others. Welcome to humanity.
-
Show this thread
-
I'd rather trust my ability to surf the emergent behavior created by algorithms whose effects are only partly within the design-intention authority of owners, and figure out how to harmonize with it.
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likesShow this thread -
Don't forget: things like employment and ownership status matter far less than actual agency. A special interest group that uses shaming and pressure tactics to enforce a UI or data rights feature is just another group of engineers pushing their algorithms onto the rest of us.
1 reply 0 retweets 9 likesShow this thread -
The fact that they are on paper "solving" for something other than money or engagement does NOT mean they are morally superior, better at designing emergent effects, or actually capable of acting in the emergent best interests of everybody.
1 reply 3 retweets 12 likesShow this thread -
If the solution to "bad" algorithms is "good" algorithms by people who set themselves up as the arbiters of good and bad, we're right back where we started, having to decide whether or not we trust makers of algorithms. Checks and balances are nice, but there are no saints here.
2 replies 2 retweets 12 likesShow this thread -
This is what increasingly pisses me off: the presumptive, holier-than-thou patronizing assumption that "we know better than you who is good and evil, and let us, the good guys, play policeman and rein in the capitalists, the bad guys, who only want your $ and engagement"
5 replies 0 retweets 17 likesShow this thread -
Not all the people who do this are bad-faith grifters running protection rackets using shaming and pressure. But enough are, and they are often worse than platform execs who are at least transparently in it for market cap/stock price. They don't pretend to be messiahs saving us.
5 replies 1 retweet 6 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @vgr
This thread is quite good. But here IMO you're missing something. Jack, Zuck, Page/Brin are billionaires many times over. They could care less about $$$: they care about what their social circle says, and we know what they say. And they want to be perceived as Messiahs.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @_expeditionary
Why would you think I'm missing that? And have you *met* the people on the other side? They may not have billions (but are often wealthier than you might think) but definitely have equal or stronger messiah complexes.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @vgr
No not personally. And yes there are some wingnuts out there for sure claiming censorship. So I could be wrong & I definitely have confirmation bias working against me... but this doesn't seem even that close to me. Antitrust is coming for these platforms, count on it.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Antitrust is a much better regulatory force than non-profit do-gooderism. There's a due process with lawyers on both sides hashing it out, not self-appointed moral guardians creating/exploiting moral panic to drive shame-based change.
-
-
Replying to @vgr
Amen brother! Like I said, I suffer from confirmation bias
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. 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.