On Post, @kathygriffin challenges Noam about Andreessen and he starts backing away (see screenshot). To which Kathy responded:
"Please don’t try to gaslight anyone on Marc Andreessen, of all people.
"Please understand that real world people had no clue about who Elon Musk and Peter Theil were, much less the destruction we didn’t catch in time. You didn’t HAVE to go to AH. You could’ve self funded."
@kathygriffin @jeffjarvis I don’t understand why anyone would want to be on another platform with an algorithm. It sucks.
@Michele @kathygriffin @jeffjarvis
I disagree. An algorithm is not intrinsically bad. As long as we understand that it represents the interests of whoever paid to have it constructed. I think an algorithm with human values that simply wanted to enrich experience is perfectly possible.
I haven't seen one, probably because nobody has ever had a financial incentive to construct it.
Mastodon would be a good place to try to make one.
@timbray @Michele @kathygriffin @jeffjarvis
We don't have to optimize for engagement.
We could optimize for better connections with the people you care about.
For a richer and more fulfilling life.
@jeffjarvis @evan @timbray @Michele @kathygriffin in this space, let's be clear, too, that "chronological" is an algorithm. Any sort of automatic moderation (blocking, muting, etc) is an algorithm.
The key thing is that *anyone* here can be in control of the algorithm that affects them. We aren't ever again going to be bound by the whims and anxieties of a bunch of guys looking to make a dollar.
(We do all have to hold ourselves accountable, which is liberating and terrifying, of course!)
@blaine @jeffjarvis @evan @timbray @Michele @kathygriffin Algorithms are not inherently bad.
An algorithm imposed on readers enforces the moral values of a third party and is inherently bad; it is censorship. But, an algorithm whose use is freely chosen by an informed reader is an act of curation -- even if identical to one whose use is censorship. What distinguishes the two is user choice -- which is protected by the Universal Declaration of Rights' Article 19.
@bobwyman No algorithm is "imposed" on anyone unless it's for an essential government service.
But more importantly, algorithms that push the morals of those who wrote them are absolutely not inherently bad.
Anti-spam filters are the most obvious example of this, but algorithms that detect abuse or content theft also qualify.
The idea that a company cleaning garbage off its property to make its service better is "censorship" is pernicious as hell.
