"The algorithm" here refers to Facebook's backend. They are using that word carelessly. I know how it works, I worked on the actual "algorithms" at Facebook. This censorship wasn't done by an "algorithm" in any meaningful sense of the word. Somebody at Facebook coded a rule that showed this content to fewer people.
All algorithms are coded rules, the idea of using an algorithm to somehow launder responsibility in tech companies is ridiculous.
Before companies had algorithms they had heuristics, nobody would (successfully) deflect blame for the actions of the organization by saying "the heuristic did this!"
The heuristic/algorithm is Facebook's creation, so they (including possibly you?) are to blame either way. I think GP is pointing out the fact that there being no clear rules or accountability on what gets surfaced on our timelines allows much more subtle and virtually undetectable ways to suppress information than previously. It all can be easily hidden behind the magic/complexity of the all-knowing "algorithm". I do find this to be a novel and very concerning vulnerability in our collective sense-making.
This would be more like shadow banning but in a way that can never be proven, or even detected in the first place. The post would just be surfaced less. Since there's no visibility on what gets surfaced when, it's a way to nudge public opinion on different issues without any accountability.
It's not at all the same. The behavior you refer to can be checked and proved by anyone as long as they know what to look for. Whereas the FB "tweak to the algorithm" discussed here cannot. This is exactly what I was saying above, I don't see what's so hard to understand here. Maybe, since you admit to have worked on said algorithm, it's a case of Upton Sinclair's dictum "“It's difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on not understanding it"?
No, it's that you haven't worked on ranking systems so you probably don't know that it's also easy to check and prove by anybody who "knows what to look for".
And the you will get banned. The only difference is that facebook has real people as requirement while reddit allows sock puppetry.
All this talk is very funny to me because it shows that most people here are too young. The algorithm exists because the establishment demanded it. I say establishment because I remember what the old geek culture was and the demand didn't come from it. It came from outside of technical libertarian circle. Once social media companies said it is possible the demand became even more shrill and it culminated in 2016 when Trump won. The algorithm was created specifically to do what Zuckerberg made it do in 2020.
> What I'm saying is that this is a heuristic, not an algorithm, and that you should blame Facebook, not "the algorithm"
Anyone who ever had any direct contact with implementing heuristics would call bullshit on this take.
Some heuristics don't even return the same result twice. Now the guy that presses the button is supposed to be held responsible for what comes out of that crapshoot?
Yes, that guy pressed the button even though he should have known there are consequences to that.
If you implement heuristics, it's your damn job to test your implementation and monitor it for adverse effects.
In the context of this article, somebody made the decision to specifically change the thing (no matter if you want to call it a heuristic or an algorithm or whatever) to bury a certain story. This is not even an unintended outcome, it's an entirely intended outcome.
> Yes, that guy pressed the button even though he should have known there are consequences to that.
You are only complaining that an heuristic outputted a result you don't like.
That's not a bug nor a problem. It's just that you feel you're entitled to an outcome that suits your fancy, regardless of the process involved.
Heuristics don't even ensure they'll output the same result twice, either because their input changes with time or because they already integrate a stochastic component.
Demanding that an operator polices the output of said heuristics especifically to suit your personal taste makes no sense at all, let alone demanding people be "held responsible" for disappointing you.
I implemented heuristics like this one at Facebook. It's not bullshit, I even know how this particular one was implemented. In this case there is some non-determinism but the false positive rate is very low and the false negative rate also very low.
Unverified clickbait gets more engagement. Almost by definition you get engagement from the people who identify with the unverified clickbait because it reinforces their world-view, and engagement from the people who recognize it as unverified clickbait because it challenges their world-view.
