Cory Doctorow
@pluralistic@mamot.fr replied  ·  activity timestamp last month
@Ehay2k What about #MeToo? Should posts from obscure account accusing Harvey Weinstein of raping them have been downranked by services, unless their moderators were personally able to verify them?

What about viral videos of cops beating the shit out of Black drivers they pulled over? These cops already assert irreparable reputational harm from these - what webhost would permit them if they could be named to civil suits?
Ehay2k
@Ehay2k@mastodon.social replied  ·  activity timestamp last month
@pluralistic

So maybe we need to decide if we would be better off with no social media algorithms?
I see algorithms as doing a LOT more harm to Society, but providing great gains to the media companies and their oligarchs.
If we banned algorithms altogether, would THAT be a negative or a positive? Or if your platform does use algorithms, you're held to a higher, tougher standard?
Ehay2k
@Ehay2k@mastodon.social replied  ·  activity timestamp last month
@pluralistic

The thing about #metoo is that it was a hashtag that people actively followed. I'm fine with that. My issue is with the algorithms - if publishers promote something to drive engagement, then they are responsible for assuring that the content isn't defamatory.
We could go even further and say they shouldnt promote false content that isn't ID'd as parody - flat earth, fake health info, etc. But that's hard to do. So, why not just ban the use of algorithms to promote content?
Cory Doctorow
@pluralistic@mamot.fr replied  ·  activity timestamp last month
@Ehay2k No, the *reason* people followed #MeToo is that it went viral thanks to recommendation algorithms. People didn't intuit the existence of the hashtag, type it into the search tool, and then start following it.

Further, the search tool *also* ranked the messages, because spammers *routinely* add trending tags to spams and scams. Without ranking, a search for any popular tag would be ten million spams.