Full time smug prick
If you model and infer some aspect of the user that is considered personal (eg de-anonymize) or sensitive (eg infer sexuality) by means of an inference system, then you are in the area of GDPR. Further use of these inferred data down the pipeline can be construed as unethical. If they want to be transparent about it they have to open-source their user-modeling and decision making system.
a reality warping engine.
Now you’re talking.
You think the Meta algorithm just sorts the feed for you? It is way more complex and it basically puts you on some very fine-grained clusters, then decides what to show to you, then collects your clicks and reactions and adjusts itself. For scale, no academic “research with human subjects” would be approved with mechanics like that under the hood. It is deeply unethical and invasive, outright dangerous for the individuals (eg teen self esteem issues, anorexias, etc, etc). So “algorithm-like features” is apples to oranges here.
Non-consensual user-modeling systems should be heavily regulated.
At this point the ones preaching against trans liberation are the same ones that will take away your union protections. This is the long and short of it.
The premise of this meme is overly simplistic. Effectively equating a social media platform with a website hosting specific beliefs.
Here are, from the top of my head, some ways Big Social is different, regardless of country.
I hardly think that any of the above should be gauged by the standards of individual rights to free speech. Even corporate entities viewed as individuals with a right to free speech.
This is something else entirely, and whoever owns it, out of whichever country must have their ass regulated off.
Even harder than the EU did.
Operations of this type and size should be eventually dismantled. They are inherently antisocial, corporatist, and totalitarian in their conception and daily function.
Sometime ago I started a discussion about the “Role of Attrition” in the effort to dismantle Big Social enterprises Here it is
I won’t validate your line of questioning my personal beliefs, since there is no way of winning this. It is dishonest and weaselly. Nor will I tolerate the various associations and insinuations behind your question, which have my ml membership as a starting point.
I have nothing to prove to you. My post history is right there for everyone to see, and it is also a recommended reading for normies. Tell me if you find sth there. Do that for a significant sample of ml users and present your data, if you want to prove a hypothesis they are pro-Putin or pro-China.
You people beating on the dead horse of “lemmy flagship instance bad commies” is sickening really.
I will not consent to you putting me on the spot as some kind of ml specimen, nor I want to stand out and say “I am different”. I already stated, I am an anarchist doing just fine in ml, and I have my own questions about defederation and why this instance tribalism is going on.
Yet you guys keep responding to me as “that ml user”. This is unacceptable. This is the type of trolling that you accuse “some” instances of, and this shows that there is something fishy about this whole ordeal.
That’s because you stoop too low.
I hope you get the help you need.
It started as a meme but this ml-hatred is a conspiracy cult at this point. I have no interest in defending no Stalinist or whatever, but I will not succumb to this false logic of judging people for signing up to the flagship instance, home to major Linux, Open Source, and Privacy communities.
In fact, I think spooks and trolls spreading disinformation under privacy and anonymity questions is a greater problem than the spectre of the bad ml/grad/hexbear user. Now, you folks are adamant that the instance someone signed-up for, often blithely, can accurately judge their character.
This is superficial and moronic and you only come up with ad hominem responses for me pointing out that your logic is abysmal. Plus, it might really hurt to admit you are wrong, since shitting on the flagship instance seems to be an unhealthy obsession for you people.
This is moronic, and I shouldn’t validate it with an answer. There are tons of trans users in ml and I hardly think any of them holds any favourable views on him.
because you’re one of “the problem.”
I always aspired to be a problem. But see you have no justification for this statement. You are just lumping together everyone who shares a lemmy.ml address without an iota of data other than your personal impressions. This is just plain lamentable.
Having said that, I hold extreme views right enough, since I don’t think there is such a thing as a middle ground to fascism. Do you see my 100% no-pasaran as a problem? And if yes, how low are you willing to stoop before setting your priorities right?
Anti-authoritarian is a word, so there’s that.
In all good faith, I am an anarchist who found ml randomly from some Privacy/Open Source searches. I signed up because I thought it was cool to be admitted in the flagship instance and I liked the anti-bigotry guidelines. Then I found out about all the drama, and I have zero fucks to give about inter-instance beefs. ML let’s me be, and I had no serious issues so far, I mostly like the crowd there, coming from Reddit even more so.
What is the real joke is categorizing people by which Lemmy instance they sign up to, and justifying it with a weak truism that “people self select for communities”. I believe it is utterly stupid, and t can also be motivated. In Lemmy.ml I have met some of the brighter minds of our generation.
This “instance tribalism” is beneath me. You can’t ignore this comment, it will live rent free in your head.
I am not subscribing to this bullshit, and I am sad my comment enabled you to spew it out. “Me too” was a valid and necessary movement to combat sexual assaults that were institutionalized in many industries and protected by law enforcement and judicial authorities. Many prominent figures went rightfully to jail for sex crimes, and the proportion of women lying about it is rather small to make a political argument off it. Tracing back “liberal-themed supremacy movements” to Jewish supremacism sounds to me quite close to Nazi conspiracy theory, to take any of this seriously. I am sorry this reached my feed, and I can’t wait to engage the likes of you in combat.
Sure it isn’t. Let’s review this when the state does the same thing lol.
Is this why we should not delegate the control of hate speech to the state, because it will always blow up in our faces?
This might be out of context for the article, but once we are in /c/technology get this: GIMP is a slur, and their slogan during startup is “we glitch because we twitch” which makes me want to kick them in the nuts every time I use the fucking software.
Fancier algorithms are not bad per se. They can be ultra-productive for many purposes. In fact, we take no issue with fancy algorithms when published as software libraries. But then only specially trained folks can seize their fruit, which it happens it is people working for Big Tech. Now, if we had user interfaces that could let the user control several free parameters of the algorithms and experience different feeds, then it would be kinda nice. The problem boils down to these areas:
Political interference and proliferation of fascist “ideas” is just a function that is possible if and only if all of the above are in play. If you take all this destructive shit away, a software that would let you explore vast amounts of data with cool algorithms through a user-friendly interface would not be bad in itself.
But you see, that is why we say “the medium is the message” and that “television is not a neutral technology”. As a media system, television is so constructed so that few corporations can address the masses, not the other way round, nor people interact with their neighbor. For a brief point in time, the internet promised to subvert that, when centralized social media brought back the exertion of control over the messaging by few corporations. The current alternative is the Fediverse and P2P networks. This is my analysis.