Embed Notice

HTML Code

<blockquote style="position: relative; padding-left: 55px;"><section><a href="https://fediscience.org/users/ct_bergstrom/statuses/109510818080994309">Carl T. Bergstrom (ct_bergstrom@fediscience.org)'s status on Wednesday, 14-Dec-2022 16:59:50 JST</a><a href="https://fediscience.org/@ct_bergstrom" title="ct_bergstrom@fediscience.org"><img src="https://gnusocial.jp/avatar/64543-48-20230504133201.webp" width="48" height="48" alt="Carl T. Bergstrom" style="position: absolute; left: 0; top: 0;">Carl T. Bergstrom</a><div><a href="https://fediscience.org/@ct_bergstrom/109510694526214067" rel="in-reply-to">in reply to</a></div></section><article><p>I initially intended just to put this up as a sort of Rorschach exercise, but people keep asking my thoughts. </p><p>I think that Dorsey has got the right solution to the wrong problem. </p><p>By algorithmic choice, he seems to be referring to letting people individually choose the algorithms that control the content that they see. (And if I read what is below correctly, he's implicitly saying that his Twitter should have let you leave your feed in chronological mode.)</p></article><footer><a rel="bookmark" href="https://gnusocial.jp/conversation/847218#notice-1673498">In conversation</a><time datetime="2022-12-14T16:59:50+09:00" title="Wednesday, 14-Dec-2022 16:59:50 JST">Wednesday, 14-Dec-2022 16:59:50 JST</time> <span>from <span><a href="https://fediscience.org/@ct_bergstrom/109510818080994309" rel="external" title="Sent from fediscience.org via ActivityPub">fediscience.org</a></span></span><a href="https://fediscience.org/@ct_bergstrom/109510818080994309">permalink</a><h4>Attachments</h4><ol><li><label><a rel="external" href="https://gnusocial.jp/attachment/483439">Which brings me to the last principle: moderation. I don’t believe a centralized system can do content moderation globally. It can only be done through ranking and relevance algorithms, the more localized the better. But instead of a company or government building and controlling these solely, people should be able to build and choose from algorithms that best match their criteria, or not have to use any at all. A “follow” action should always deliver every bit of content from the corresponding account, and the algorithms should be able to comb through everything else through a relevance lens that an individual determines. There’s a default “G-rated” algorithm, and then there’s everything else one can imagine.</a></label><br><a href="https://fediscience.org/system/media_attachments/files/109/510/810/489/403/061/original/d551e2c3111f348b.png" rel="external">https://fediscience.org/system/media_attachments/files/109/510/810/489/403/061/original/d551e2c3111f348b.png</a></li></ol></footer></blockquote>

Corresponding Notice

Embed this notice
Carl T. Bergstrom (ct_bergstrom@fediscience.org)'s status on Wednesday, 14-Dec-2022 16:59:50 JST Carl T. Bergstrom
in reply to
I initially intended just to put this up as a sort of Rorschach exercise, but people keep asking my thoughts.
I think that Dorsey has got the right solution to the wrong problem.
By algorithmic choice, he seems to be referring to letting people individually choose the algorithms that control the content that they see. (And if I read what is below correctly, he's implicitly saying that his Twitter should have let you leave your feed in chronological mode.)
In conversationWednesday, 14-Dec-2022 16:59:50 JST from fediscience.orgpermalink
Attachments
1. Which brings me to the last principle: moderation. I don’t believe a centralized system can do content moderation globally. It can only be done through ranking and relevance algorithms, the more localized the better. But instead of a company or government building and controlling these solely, people should be able to build and choose from algorithms that best match their criteria, or not have to use any at all. A “follow” action should always deliver every bit of content from the corresponding account, and the algorithms should be able to comb through everything else through a relevance lens that an individual determines. There’s a default “G-rated” algorithm, and then there’s everything else one can imagine.
  https://fediscience.org/system/media_attachments/files/109/510/810/489/403/061/original/d551e2c3111f348b.png

Public

Embed Notice

HTML Code

Corresponding Notice