Facebook feed, like any engagement-optimized algorithm, seems to disproportionately amplify things that promote in-group bonding, out-group conflict, “aaaaw” stuff, novelty (fakish news is novel!) and anger. That’s a very specific kind of bias, and it’s socially centrifugal.
-
-
It doesn’t map onto conservative/liberal bias in traditional mass media. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/19/opinion/the-real-bias-built-in-at-facebook.html …
1 reply 1 retweet 2 likes -
right, I've said as much as well and we agree on all of that.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
there is not, afaict, any epidemic of deplatforming. most accounts that are booted have fallen afoul of a ToS requirement (which is non-ideological). but in this thread I'm now reading that any ToS is an affront to freedom of speech.
1 reply 1 retweet 4 likes -
throttling the spread of fake news, decisions to add friction to virality, reranking a feed - things that might impact reach - are now denying a right to be *heard*.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
where we came down on health misinformation earlier this year was that its creators could post it, but the reco engine would not promote it, and FB would not accept $ for ads. is that policy violating freedom of speech?
1 reply 2 retweets 1 like -
Again, what if that policy is applied to Elizabeth Warren? Who decides such a powerful TOS? How is it implemented? How many moderators are interpreting the TOS for, say, Sri Lanka? I believe these are free speech issues—but also that we balance this with other potential harms.
2 replies 1 retweet 1 like -
if the platform goes out and targets a specific individual who has committed no violation, that's a problem. Outside of worst-case thought experiments, has that happened? "who decides?" - again, we are all on board with oversight and regulation. even Mark Zuckerberg.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
back in the IRL now, where there are significant not-potential-but-actualized harms, reducing distribution/virality while maintaining access *was* the effort at balancing the preservation of speech. this is exactly my point.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Your writing on this, here: https://www.wired.com/story/infowars-alex-jones-voldemort-platform-attention-gaming/ … again, we agree and have largely said the same things. we have got to get past this "who decides" paralysis and begin to experiment with solutions. i think distribution and acct authenticity are the two best levers right now.
1 reply 1 retweet 3 likes
We may agree on the levers but it’s still a free speech issue how it’s decided what’s a violation and what is not—and how it is implemented.
-
-
and my belief is that allowing the presence of what mods term 'borderline' content - while reducing recommendations/virality - is the best option we have to balance free speech w/the other concerns. combined w/a transparent appeals process &oversight, it's a tangible way forward
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
this new Board thing they're putting together seems designed to provide oversight for the "but who decides on Terms of Service?" concern, so there too there's at least a tangible step forward.
0 replies 0 retweets 1 like
End of conversation
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.