Quote (Thor123422 @ Oct 21 2020 10:31am)
Steering the national conversation has always happened. Why is this different?
(I'm generally in favor of more strict enforcement of anti-trust laws. I'm giving you a chance to make your case on this specific issue)
If they opened the source algorithm it would be all but useless. Modern algorithms for huge projects like google are mostly AI, which can't be deciphered even by those who created it because it is dependent on the training process and available data. It's a scientific process in itself to get any insight into why an AI makes its decisions.
Because it crosses into the territory of propaganda. Not making an honest argument like people in a debate would, but misleading by omitting or burying contradictory results.
Useless to the layman, not to software experts.
Quote (thesnipa @ Oct 21 2020 10:31am)
Yeah but that algorithmic explanation will be subject to the same left/right bias anything is. it's just a bunch of zeros and ones, and when someone explains what "get:batch, sysrend2 storgage >>> aNlor k12" or whatever is in there is we'll get a bunch of bullshit and/or legit justifications.
also what is considered a trade secret here? is google required to publish and republish every day as they make advancements?
id be all for an algorithm i could curate for myself, add or remove interests for ads, etc. but a machine gets me to buy stuff more effectively, so google doesnt want that.
I'm not going to pretend I can give technical answers here. I'm after transparency, and if people in the field can tell the public "they're distorting their rendered results like this," that would be enough for me.
Quote (duffman316 @ Oct 21 2020 10:33am)
Do you believe that the government should get involved to control the national conversation instead?
This is starting to sound like something china would approve of.
Does the government currently have a legitimate role in regulating television? Radio?