This is precisely why tech companies should not the the arbiters of news. Progressive or otherwise. We should not outsource our civic responsibilities to tech companies.
Fake news websites, misinformation and conspiracy theories are now mainstream, and democracy is failing. This is caused by big tech AIs focused on gaining engagement.
So it is right for me that, in theory, the same tech companies try to stop this big mess.
But personally and practically I don’t think this purpose is achievable without tossing the whole algorithms behind the engagement thing, and milder counter reactions like this will cause in long term only more drama and nothing useful....
Some countries actually have laws that prevent broadcasters from knowingly broadcasting false news. Canada is one. It is, however, a condition that is restricted to broadcasting licenses.
In the distant past when newspapers were locally owned and operated, those who owned printing presses lived in the communities that they worked in and published in. Globalization has removed that link. My theory is that losing that link has distorted the nature of publishing. It is now cheaper (more profitable) to publish false news than it is to publish well researched journalism. There is no local reputation to protect. Who needs to pay for fact checkers and editors to reach out to trusted sources to verify a story when the story itself isn't even true? Let's just throw whatever at the wall, and, hey, we can sell more ads if it blows up on social media!
Normally I’d be inclined to believe Mother Jones and doubt Facebook but the argument here feels weak and possibly misrepresented.
I don’t doubt that Mother Jones lost traffic due to an algorithm change, but implied in the article is that it was deliberate silencing of a specific progressive news source, which doesn’t appear to be backed up by any facts.
Algorithm changes are always going to produce winners and losers. I agree with the argument that privately owned tech companies probably shouldn’t wield this power, but this particular instance doesn’t appear to be news.
>Algorithm changes are always going to produce winners and losers.
The implementers have control of the algorithm. If you choose to go a certain way, then that means you are accepting the output. Why should anyone be able to hide behind "it's just an algorithm change."
Now I understand that many of these machine learning algorithms lead to unpredictable and unexpected results. But again, they have found these risks acceptable by continuing to use them anyway.
There should never be any hiding behind "its the algorithm, not us." You are responsible for your algorithms, whether you understand it or not.
The thing I don't understand is why they continue trying these stupid algorithms. What value is there in them? It's very rare for me to encounter one of these things and go "yes, this is exactly what I wanted." More likely, they get in the way of what I want to do. Maybe I'm an outlier, but I really wish as a profession, we'd be much more frank regarding the actual results of these things.
17 comments
[ 3.8 ms ] story [ 54.5 ms ] threadNot for the teens who have moved on
Not even for the millenials
But the older parents and grandparents
for them Facebook is pretty much how they view the Internet
And WhatsApp is taking over some countries - so there Whats App is the Internet
Honestly I'm surprised they didn't release a DP filter for "I stand with Myanmar against Rohingyan terrorists", or something on those lines.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
In the distant past when newspapers were locally owned and operated, those who owned printing presses lived in the communities that they worked in and published in. Globalization has removed that link. My theory is that losing that link has distorted the nature of publishing. It is now cheaper (more profitable) to publish false news than it is to publish well researched journalism. There is no local reputation to protect. Who needs to pay for fact checkers and editors to reach out to trusted sources to verify a story when the story itself isn't even true? Let's just throw whatever at the wall, and, hey, we can sell more ads if it blows up on social media!
I don’t doubt that Mother Jones lost traffic due to an algorithm change, but implied in the article is that it was deliberate silencing of a specific progressive news source, which doesn’t appear to be backed up by any facts.
Algorithm changes are always going to produce winners and losers. I agree with the argument that privately owned tech companies probably shouldn’t wield this power, but this particular instance doesn’t appear to be news.
The implementers have control of the algorithm. If you choose to go a certain way, then that means you are accepting the output. Why should anyone be able to hide behind "it's just an algorithm change."
Now I understand that many of these machine learning algorithms lead to unpredictable and unexpected results. But again, they have found these risks acceptable by continuing to use them anyway.
There should never be any hiding behind "its the algorithm, not us." You are responsible for your algorithms, whether you understand it or not.
The thing I don't understand is why they continue trying these stupid algorithms. What value is there in them? It's very rare for me to encounter one of these things and go "yes, this is exactly what I wanted." More likely, they get in the way of what I want to do. Maybe I'm an outlier, but I really wish as a profession, we'd be much more frank regarding the actual results of these things.