Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

Re:Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content” by jjeaff on Friday July 16, 2021 @05:59PM (#27861721)

I disagree. I think the algorithms are fundamentally immoral because they promote content that gets "engagement". Which includes and in many cases prioritizes content that people have engaged with because it causes a negative response. Rather than pushing good* content, it prioritizes lowest common denominator, reality tv, desperate pundit, fast food, self congratulatory, outrage porn garbage.

*By good, I simply mean thoughtful, high quality, factual, educational, or otherwise uplifting content regardless of politics

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content” by ShroudedNight on Friday July 16, 2021 @06:17PM (#27861857)

I don't think "Good" is unambiguous enough to trust the platforms to promote it. How about simply "related"? Show people the content they've explicitly asked for. If people explicitly ask for outrageous content, then fine, but we needn't force feed it to society.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content” by XorNot on Friday July 16, 2021 @10:32PM (#27863172)

Algorithms don't work like this though: content that feeds outrage disproportionately outranks content which doesn't.

Algorithms don't discriminate "content" by it's actual content: they keyword match and look for clicks, and build a pretty perfect radicalization pathway more easily then they build a discourse [1].

You have probably experienced this: almost everyone has the experience of wanting to see some particular YouTube video, but opened it in an Incognito tab (or just avoided it) explicitly because they know the topic will prime the YouTube homepage to fill with nothing but things you don't want to see.

[1] https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/youtube-fa...

[ Parent | on HN ]