I was listening to the news concerning the mid-term elections. The discussion was centering around interference through the use of social media. You know, those that would attempt to sway your decision as to which candidate deserves your vote. A spokesperson from Facebook explained they were increasing security and utilizing a filtering alogirythmn to screen out misinformation. Yes, they have a alogirythmn to determine what is true or not. It's like a lie detector for Facebook! It will also determine, and here is another word that jumped out at me, inauthentic behaviors. Inauthentic behaviors are those behaviors that are not based in fact, they are intended to deceive. Facebook will be keeping us safe from, are you ready for this, influences. That's right, we will not be unduly influenced in our thinking because of an alogirythmn. Modern man is just so smart!
This stems from the accusations that the Russians , among others , bought ads on Facebook and influenced American citizens in the last election. That's how Trump got elected, the Russians did it. Trump is their secret weapon. Well, that can't happen again, we have an alogirythmn. What a relief. Of course that does leave the question of the candidate themselves. I mean, they are campaigning aren't they? And when you are campaigning aren't you attempting to influence? And I would suggest, some politicians even engage in inauthentic behaviors! What are we going to do about that?
There are those on the left that would inhibit your freedom of speech for just that very reason. The effort has already begun. They may call it an alogirythmn but I see it for what it really is, a restriction on free speech. I say that because they do call it a filter. And what does a filter do? It captures whatever it is we do not want to be distributed. In this case, Facebook will now be filtering our speech! Oh, but we are only filtering out the bad. The bad by whose determination? When it comes to opinions, how do you determine what is the correct opinion and what is not? By your opinion! The Supreme court issues an opinion on law. That opinion is subject to change. That's what the big issue with the confirmation hearings is really all about. A new court, with people of a different opinion, may change their opinion. Doesn't mean it will change law though, just the opinion if the law is constitutional or not. In the same way, Facebooks alogirythmn will perform that function. Who gets to write it! It certainly isn't a constitutional convention!
I think we are starting out on a slippery slope here. If we are going to allow the filtering of our speech, in regard to personal opinions, we are starting to restrict speech. And that is exactly what is happening with this alogirythmn. A machine, a mathematical formula, can not determine opinion from fact? So whoever writes the alogirythmn determines that. Is it possible to write a biased alogirythmn? I'm not mathematical genius, I'm not sure how you do that, but I'm thinking you surely could write the bias right in. We use bias all the time in our electrical/mechanical controllers. They all work on the same principle. If this is this, than that is that. Like a balance scale one side reacts according to action of the other. Fact is, I influence that behavior by entering a bias! It's pretty basic really.
Now I do think that a private corporation has the right to publish or not publish whatever it is they wish. Facebook is under no obligation to allow me to post anything. I'm not paying for that service, simple as that. Take the New York Times and their latest op-ed. Whereas it infuriates me that they published such a opinion, it is their opinion after all. That's what an op-ed is after all, an opinion. Freedom of the press. The issue lies in the implication that this opinion is fact. Isn't that the truth of that? The New York Times relies upon its' reputation as a reliable source of information, unbiased and verified correct before publication. Journalist integrity is the term they apply. If, say the National Enquirer had published the same opinion would everyone be as upset? I highly doubt it because the majority of folks would just dismiss that article as sensationalism. That is the stock in trade of the National Enquirer. Is their an alogirythmn to determine if the New York Times is acting in an inauthentic manner? Shouldn't we apply the alogirythmn that Facebook developed to that publication as well? I wouldn't want to be influenced in the wrong way by the New York Times, or the Enquirer for that matter. I want the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth! Hey, we've got an alogirythmn for that. Ah but then I would be influenced by the truth as perceived by whoever wrote the alogirythmn in the first place. The only solution I can see is the old fashioned way, independent thought and research. I know, I know, we really need an app for that. We'll call it the "upright ostrich." Come on people pull your head out of your sandbox. You thought I was going to say something else didn't you? Well, I also believe in polite company and maintaining a semblance of decorum.
This stems from the accusations that the Russians , among others , bought ads on Facebook and influenced American citizens in the last election. That's how Trump got elected, the Russians did it. Trump is their secret weapon. Well, that can't happen again, we have an alogirythmn. What a relief. Of course that does leave the question of the candidate themselves. I mean, they are campaigning aren't they? And when you are campaigning aren't you attempting to influence? And I would suggest, some politicians even engage in inauthentic behaviors! What are we going to do about that?
There are those on the left that would inhibit your freedom of speech for just that very reason. The effort has already begun. They may call it an alogirythmn but I see it for what it really is, a restriction on free speech. I say that because they do call it a filter. And what does a filter do? It captures whatever it is we do not want to be distributed. In this case, Facebook will now be filtering our speech! Oh, but we are only filtering out the bad. The bad by whose determination? When it comes to opinions, how do you determine what is the correct opinion and what is not? By your opinion! The Supreme court issues an opinion on law. That opinion is subject to change. That's what the big issue with the confirmation hearings is really all about. A new court, with people of a different opinion, may change their opinion. Doesn't mean it will change law though, just the opinion if the law is constitutional or not. In the same way, Facebooks alogirythmn will perform that function. Who gets to write it! It certainly isn't a constitutional convention!
I think we are starting out on a slippery slope here. If we are going to allow the filtering of our speech, in regard to personal opinions, we are starting to restrict speech. And that is exactly what is happening with this alogirythmn. A machine, a mathematical formula, can not determine opinion from fact? So whoever writes the alogirythmn determines that. Is it possible to write a biased alogirythmn? I'm not mathematical genius, I'm not sure how you do that, but I'm thinking you surely could write the bias right in. We use bias all the time in our electrical/mechanical controllers. They all work on the same principle. If this is this, than that is that. Like a balance scale one side reacts according to action of the other. Fact is, I influence that behavior by entering a bias! It's pretty basic really.
Now I do think that a private corporation has the right to publish or not publish whatever it is they wish. Facebook is under no obligation to allow me to post anything. I'm not paying for that service, simple as that. Take the New York Times and their latest op-ed. Whereas it infuriates me that they published such a opinion, it is their opinion after all. That's what an op-ed is after all, an opinion. Freedom of the press. The issue lies in the implication that this opinion is fact. Isn't that the truth of that? The New York Times relies upon its' reputation as a reliable source of information, unbiased and verified correct before publication. Journalist integrity is the term they apply. If, say the National Enquirer had published the same opinion would everyone be as upset? I highly doubt it because the majority of folks would just dismiss that article as sensationalism. That is the stock in trade of the National Enquirer. Is their an alogirythmn to determine if the New York Times is acting in an inauthentic manner? Shouldn't we apply the alogirythmn that Facebook developed to that publication as well? I wouldn't want to be influenced in the wrong way by the New York Times, or the Enquirer for that matter. I want the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth! Hey, we've got an alogirythmn for that. Ah but then I would be influenced by the truth as perceived by whoever wrote the alogirythmn in the first place. The only solution I can see is the old fashioned way, independent thought and research. I know, I know, we really need an app for that. We'll call it the "upright ostrich." Come on people pull your head out of your sandbox. You thought I was going to say something else didn't you? Well, I also believe in polite company and maintaining a semblance of decorum.
No comments:
Post a Comment