|
I doubt it's the algorithms that made Bernie Sanders popular on social media, it's because that is the modern way of communication about ideas and news that is of interest to the people using it which the mainstream media ignores and/or actively suppresses. Ascribing literally everything to the algorithm seems like deliberate reductionism in bad faith, at best.
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2022 03:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 16:09 |
|
|
Kalit posted:Are you saying that the execs at Facebook/Twitter/etc actively wanted Sanders 2016 campaign to be successful? If that's true, holy poo poo, I just became a huge fan of them! why quote me and then argue with what you would prefer I had said what is the point of this exercise
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2022 03:27
|
|
|
Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:not a unity. cosmetic fluctuations, those the organization does not consider contrary to its aims, are not cause for removal. 2016 polls could claim Texas was going blue and be considered credible! it was only if your system predicted Trump might win that it needed correction before release to the public. This is explicitly unfalsifiable, as the content of the designer's intentions are assumed to be the same as the outcomes, and contrary outcomes that produce changes are categorically assumed to be things the designers didn't care about. It's meaningless. All you've done is load that lack of falsifiability into "core policy" and "mission". Any change is dismissed as a change in the intended design relative to the mission, or as not a core policy. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 03:40 on Oct 11, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2022 03:36
|
|
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:I doubt it's the algorithms that made Bernie Sanders popular on social media, it's because that is the modern way of communication about ideas and news that is of interest to the people using it which the mainstream media ignores and/or actively suppresses. So… if algorithms encouraged positive discussions that occur outside of traditional sources, wouldn’t that be a good aspect of them? That’s literally my point 
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2022 03:38
|
|
|
Kalit posted:So… if algorithms encouraged this, wouldn’t that be a good aspect of them? That’s literally my point The algorithms are fun house mirrors distorted by both the user and the creator
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2022 03:39
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure ymb is making a pretty standard argument for The purpose of a system is what it does. The purpose of the Algorithm is to sell suicide kits because that's what it does. It does this because that makes the owners of the system more profit. Things don't occur happenstance in an algorithm. The people in the driver's seat of the Algorithm have no care for anything except maximizing profit. Thus, the Algorithm is a marvel of design in doing so and no one sweats the details.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2022 03:42
|
|
|
2016 algorithms weren't yet optimized to prefer step family tags to social democracy. This error has been rectified.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2022 03:43
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:I'm pretty sure ymb is making a pretty standard argument for The purpose of a system is what it does. The purpose of the Algorithm is to sell suicide kits because that's what it does. It does this because that makes the owners of the system more profit. This appears to, again, be an explicitly unfalsifiable statement enshrined as a thought-terminating cliche. It only works by not "sweating the details" of distinctions you don't want to recognize. Like, among other counterpoints, this categorically denies the existence of badly made systems.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2022 03:46
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:This is explicitly unfalsifiable, as the content of the designer's intentions are assumed to be the same as the outcomes, and contrary outcomes that produce changes are categorically assumed to be things the designers didn't care about. It's meaningless. All you've done is load that lack of falsifiability into "core policy" and "mission". if you would like to assert that the Amazon designers actually cared about whether or not they produced suicide kits, nothing stops you. that this would put you on incredibly tenuous ground is not an indication of weakness on -my- part.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2022 03:47
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:This appears to, again, be an explicitly unfalsifiable statement enshrined as a thought-terminating cliche. It only works by not "sweating the details" of distinctions you don't want to recognize. Like, among other counterpoints, this categorically denies the existence of badly made systems. it does not sweat the details because those details do not impact Amazon's profit (in the short term). Regarding the bolded, the system being badly made by no means contradicts POSIWID. A poor designer will design a system that accomplishes its purpose, though the designer may be rather surprised by that purpose. I would, however, be extremely hesitent to call The Algorithm badly designed. In my opinion it seems masterfully designed and accomplishes its purpose with similar aplomb.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2022 03:52
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:This appears to, again, be an explicitly unfalsifiable statement enshrined as a thought-terminating cliche. It only works by not "sweating the details" of distinctions you don't want to recognize. Like, among other counterpoints, this categorically denies the existence of badly made systems. if you interrogate this statement, you will find you have buried an entire world of ideological assumptions in the word 'badly.'
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2022 03:55
|
|
|
Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:if you interrogate this statement, you will find you have buried an entire world ideological assumptions in the word 'badly.' No, I haven't. Your framework operates only by obfuscating the distinction between what the designer intends and the outcome of the design by obviating that really massive range of alternate explanations by forcing it backwards into itself. "Badly" can mean that there is a possible distinction between the intended design of something and what it does, rather than any outside view. If a chair is manufactured and breaks under the intended user's weight, was it because the manufacturer designed the chair to break, or because the designer wasn't interested in making the chair bear the weight of the user? This shifting interest-based motive response is analogous to neorealism- any system outcome is assumed to be in the designer's interest, which can be used to explain away or justify any outcome. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 04:02 on Oct 11, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2022 03:58
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:This appears to, again, be an explicitly unfalsifiable statement enshrined as a thought-terminating cliche. It only works by not "sweating the details" of distinctions you don't want to recognize. Like, among other counterpoints, this categorically denies the existence of badly made systems. This contention would be the same if you disagreed with the File Drawer effect on scientific studies. I do not think there is much intelligence in denying the existance of publication biases.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2022 03:59
|
|
|
Gerund posted:This contention would be the same if you disagreed with the File Drawer effect on scientific studies. I do not think there is much intelligence in denying the existance of publication biases. I'm not the one denying the existence of biases. I'm the one denying that the intention of the designer (or, in your example, the biases of the author) are the only thing that determines outcomes. Much as the author doesn't anticipate the demands of reviewer 3, the designer doesn't have the power of god to anticipate and match all outcomes of a system that affect their intended outcomes. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 04:09 on Oct 11, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2022 04:03
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:No, I haven't. Your framework operates only by obfuscating the distinction between what the designer intends and the outcome of the design by obviating that really massive range of alternate explanations by forcing it backwards into itself. expand beyond 'nuh-uh,' please. e. ah good, you did (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! fucked around with this message at 04:13 on Oct 11, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2022 04:05
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:If a chair is manufactured and breaks under the intended user's weight, was it because the manufacturer designed the chair to break, or because the designer wasn't interested in making the chair bear the weight of the user?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2022 04:11
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:No, I haven't. Your framework operates only by obfuscating the distinction between what the designer intends and the outcome of the design by obviating that really massive range of alternate explanations by forcing it backwards into itself. "Badly" can mean that there is a possible distinction between the intended design of something and what it does, rather than any outside view. If a chair is manufactured and breaks under the intended user's weight, was it because the manufacturer designed the chair to break, or because the designer wasn't interested in making the chair bear the weight of the user? to call such a chair badly designed is to assume the purpose of the chair is to bear the user's weight. on what grounds would you assume this.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2022 04:12
|
|
|
So as you are now demonstrating, the claim is unfalsifiable because any contrary outcome, no matter how obvious, gets loaded into the "true intentions" of the designer.A big flaming stink posted:..honestly, this seems a pretty straightforward example of what YMB and I are talking about. Was the chair's designer concerned with a 500 pound person being able to sit in the chair? If they were not, then essentially, it is the case that the chair was designed to break when utilized by a person who weighs 500 pounds. The word "essentially" as you are using it here continues to reflect that you've constructed a tautological claim. Even Beer at least loaded the statement with "constantly," and didn't intend it to apply everywhere- you're treating the circular nature of the supposed unity of design and outcome as a categorical.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2022 04:17
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I'm not the one denying the existence of biases. I'm the one denying that the intention of the designer (or, in your example, the biases of the author) are the only thing that determines outcomes. Much as the author doesn't anticipate the demands of reviewer 3, the designer doesn't have the power of god to anticipate and match all outcomes of a system that affect their intended outcomes. The File Drawer effect isn't a study being controlled or dictated by the scientist either, and yet the bias remains. An algorthim is a published product, edited and controlled by the owner. As such, smart people should treat them as products, and not a hollywood Star Trek fantasy of Perfect Computation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2022 04:17
|
|
|
Gerund posted:The File Drawer effect isn't a study being controlled or dictated by the scientist either, and yet the bias remains. An algorthim is a published product, edited and controlled by the owner. As such, smart people should treat them as products, and not a hollywood Star Trek fantasy of Perfect Computation. I...okay, I think you may have a few things confused here. First, filedrawer effects refer to both deliberate and non-deliberate actions by both researchers and publishers, and are not produced out of the aether. Second, I am explicitly not arguing the inverse of the tautology, that algorithms are or can be perfect or some how free of the intention of the designer. There is a range of possible explanations beyond either "all systems do exactly what they are intended to do by the designer" and "All systems could be perfectable in an external moral sense if only we could remove the biases of their designers". That algorithms or publications are the product of systems does not mean that they wholly reflect the intentions of their designers, absent a tautological application of intention and design, which is the entire problem. Like you have to start completely mainlining Actor Network Theory to get to a place where that makes sense, and even Latour doesn't treat the design as the product of a unified interest- nor does the interrogation of the individual causal elements leading to Latour's truth product stop being relevant because "the system" leading to it can be obliterated into a black box. The algorithm isn't just "a guy", it's something externally created by, often, a whole bunch of guys, and they can do things like miscommunicate in meetings and make typos. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 04:30 on Oct 11, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2022 04:23
|
|
|
I mean, I think we all have an agreement that the design decisions of the creators are the problem. I agree with all of what Y!MB is saying, even though I think they aren't sensing the sarcasm that's given off on the understanding. Anyone been on the internet pre-Amazon given recommendations or been exposed to traditional retail practices goes duh. What does an algorithm do by law though... it cant be indifferent because it has a design motive. That's the crux of it no matter how nobel or simple it is. A decision tree based on the amount something has been seen can be no different than the decision based on the content there in. Going back to the simplest one I can think of. The top ten list. To automatically show it on a front page could be editorializing, to select it on a link on the front page to view it would be a user choice. Where is the choice made and on what side of the liability does it stand ?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2022 04:38
|
|
|
BlueBlazer posted:I mean, I think we all have an agreement that the design decisions of the creators are the problem. I agree with all of what Y!MB is saying, even though I think they aren't sensing the sarcasm that's given off on the understanding. Anyone been on the internet pre-Amazon given recommendations or been exposed to traditional retail practices goes duh. I'm not interested in trying to argue against a tautological argument that's presented that way as sarcasm or a joke or whatever other excuse. Both categoricals of absolute and zero intentionality are "duh," but one of them just took up a page. BlueBlazer posted:What does an algorithm do by law though... it cant be indifferent because it has a design motive. That's the crux of it no matter how nobel or simple it is. A decision tree based on the amount something has been seen can be no different than the decision based on the content there in. Well, here I'll repeat the language from the petition again as a potential starting point for analysis: At p. 31: quote:The text of section 230 clearly distinguishes between a system that provides to a user information that the user is actually seeking (as does a search engine) and a system utilized by an internet company to direct at a user information (such as a recommendation) that the company wants the user to have. Section 230(b) states that “It is the policy of the United States ... to encourage the development of technologies which maximize user control over what information is received by individuals, families, and schools who use the internet and other computer services.” 47 U.S.C. § 230(b) (emphasis added). Congress found that “[t]he developing array of Internet and other interactive computer services ... offers users a greater degree of control over the information that they receive, as well as the potential for even greater control in the future as technology develops.” 47 U.S.C. § 230(a) (emphasis added). The core function of a search engine advances that policy, because it enables a user to select what information he or she will receive; on the other hand, when an interactive computer service makes a recommendation to a user, it is the service not the user that determines that the user will receive that recommendation. The crux of this part of the argument is that both in terms of user selection and cases where there is no "seeking," an output that has been subject to some editorial or publishing element- but that the root purpose of Section 230, and the extent of the protection it should afford, is to where the output, however subject to design, is the product of an act of seeking the output. From here, the company is at least forced to explicitly reckon with the outcomes of its actions in the passive receiver context. The petitioner then leans on how the "publisher" is in fact editorializing on these actions at p. 35: quote:The decision below insisted it was holding only that recommendations by an interactive computer service are protected by section 230 if those recommendations are made in a “neutral” manner. “We only reiterate that a website’s use of content-neutral algorithms, without more, does not expose it to liability....” [41a]. “[The complaint does not] allege that Google’s algorithms treated ISIS-created content differently than any other third-party created content.” Id. The Second Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 04:54 on Oct 11, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2022 04:48
|
|
|
Surprising no one https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/1579788950696185859 I remember back in 2016 when I actually was naive enough to think that Trump's outright support of Putin would be a bridge too far for Republicans, but now open support of Russia is core conservative ideology.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2022 13:05
|
|
|
Russia represents a system they badly want to create in the US.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2022 13:16
|
|
|
drat, just looking at her post-2020 wiki and she's gotten a lot worse since I last checked. Guest-hosting for Tucker and speaking at CPAC. Although I guess she's always had terrible opinions they were just minimally disguised before. Strong use of "cabal", naturally
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2022 13:20
|
|
|
I AM GRANDO posted:Russia represents a system they badly want to create in the US. Epic High Five often opines that Putin's Russia is basically the US in a decade on present course. I dunno if I agree with the timeline but imo it's not a bad comparison.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2022 13:27
|
|
|
No it's completely different politically. The one place where there is unity is mentality, but the Americans are worse. They aren't even capable of having the basic political comprehension to view themselves as political beings.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2022 13:34
|
|
|
Dubar posted:Surprising no one No surprise she left, she's been heading in that direction for at least half a decade now. I'm a bit surprised she didn't do a full change of parties.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2022 13:43
|
|
|
Isn't Russia the country where its people are described as resoundingly politically apathetic? I don't see how you can claim that Americans are the ones with no comprehension of basic politics, even when you're not comparing them to Russia. Americans are extremely active in their political systems at every level.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2022 13:43
|
|
|
Russia tried to have nice things and the whole world teamed up to make sure they didn't. Of course they gave up on politics. That said, Russia pretty much is where most of the Western world is on course for with neoliberalism turning into outright kleptocracy as colonialism comes home; see also the UK.Tiny Timbs posted:Isn't Russia the country where its people are described as resoundingly politically apathetic? I don't see how you can claim that Americans are the ones with no comprehension of basic politics, even when you're not comparing them to Russia. Americans are extremely active in their political systems at every level. Being very active in politics does not at all correlate to having an effective understanding or comprehension of politics, this should be extremely clear by now.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2022 13:52
|
|
|
lol lmao also she's trying to look like rogue from the x-men or something
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2022 13:54
|
|
|
Tiny Timbs posted:Americans are extremely active in their political systems at every level. [citation needed]
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2022 13:57
|
|
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:Being very active in politics does not at all correlate to having an effective understanding or comprehension of politics, this should be extremely clear by now. That’s just kind of a nonsense-sounding standard that doesn’t seem like it would apply to very many people on earth at all.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2022 14:08
|
|
|
Tiny Timbs posted:Isn't Russia the country where its people are described as resoundingly politically apathetic? I don't see how you can claim that Americans are the ones with no comprehension of basic politics, even when you're not comparing them to Russia. Americans are extremely active in their political systems at every level. That apathy is built on a basic assumption of exceptionalness and superiority
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2022 14:16
|
|
|
Could she have squeezed in a few more right-wing buzzwords in there?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2022 14:17
|
|
|
Tiny Timbs posted:That’s just kind of a nonsense-sounding standard that doesn’t seem like it would apply to very many people on earth at all. Donald Trump.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2022 14:22
|
|
|
The Department of Labor is taking away your right to work 40 hours a week for Uber for less than minimum wage and increasing the price of your Grubhub order by 30%. https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1579816502160928769 quote:Uber and Lyft have said in federal filings that having to treat drivers as employees could force them to alter their business models, and some gig economy officials have estimated that their labor costs would rise 20 to 30 percent. quote:The Biden administration delayed and then scrapped the Trump rule before a federal judge reinstated it. The new proposal would formally rescind the Trump rule and replace it when the proposal is made final in the coming months. Opponents could ask a federal judge to block the rule temporarily or strike it down, but administration officials expressed confidence that it would withstand judicial scrutiny. quote:Administration officials cautioned that determining whether or not gig workers like Uber drivers are employees would hinge on applying the test laid out in the proposal to individual cases and that they were not prejudging the outcome of any one of them. They also emphasized that the proposal did not target a particular industry. It's important to be extremely careful to not potentially give opponents a legal leg to stand on, but also lol that "this law isn't targeted at any specific industry and applies to everyone." "It isn't targeted at the gig economy, it applies to all industries where your employees are classified as independent contractors and take orders via an app, but don't have any authority in determining the overall company policy and this rule replaces a completely unrelated Trump administration rule governing how to classify gig workers." quote:Gig companies like Uber and Lyft have sought for years to influence laws and regulations on worker classification. After the California Legislature passed a bill that effectively classified gig drivers as employees in 2019, gig companies spent roughly $200 million helping to pass a ballot measure that would exempt their workers from employee status while granting them limited benefits.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2022 14:41
|
|
|
Virtually every time a candidate is accused of being a russian asset it's incredibly dumb but people like gabbard make you have to stop and think about it first even though the connections to modi/rss hindu hypernationalism make more sense her positions are truly that mystifyingly bad
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2022 14:43
|
|
|
Tiny Timbs posted:That’s just kind of a nonsense-sounding standard that doesn’t seem like it would apply to very many people on earth at all. Most people's understanding and involvement in politics starts and stops at how it affects them, specifically. Attend a local board meeting for basic traffic changes and stand in awe.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2022 14:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 16:09 |
|
|
when it comes to the youtube algorithm, isn't it owned by google? can't they just cross reference what videos the algorithm is feeding the people they've been datafarming for decades? "hey, let's look at the videos the algorithm is recommending to people who go to stormfront and google "phrenology" all the time."
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2022 15:10
|
|
