even so. there's no right to reach a mass audience conferred by the freedom of speech. doing something that results in getting kicked off facebook is not a loss of freedom of speech.
-
-
do you think the process by which posts make it into the feed is in some way biased against specific ideas or people? i am all for more research and getting more data out on that, but based on what we have, this has never happened.
-
there were definitely decisions made to tamp down on virality around hoaxes - ie, the Pelosi shallowfake - which are somehow now being recast as "stifling freedom of speech" as if that virality is owed.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
From that perspective the current algorithm already is unfair against candidates that don't post highly engaging (eg. emotional) content.
-
More on that from
@cwarzel https://twitter.com/cwarzel/status/1182658334098247680 …: "Just as television favored a new brand of well-coiffed, charismatic and dynamic political figures, Facebook offers a disproportionate advantage to those most likely to stoke negative emotions."
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
It's a great question which is partially why I've come to believe that content filtering algorithms will inevitably fall under an independent government agency in a similar way the FCC regulates the airwaves. I hope not but it feels inevitable.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
The algorithm is the key point. It’s one thing your Facebook is an open platform and your serve content without a filtering algorithm, but as Facebook owns the algorithm and it is secret, and this is another problem entirely.
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.