most people would do their "own research" through google. algorithm itself is not the issue. if google didn't skew towards one side (it actually didn't at one point if you remember) it could've embodied free speech.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
I'm not sure that's relevant, since Google still provides most the links that exist, they are simply further down the list. Also, googles popularity is waning and we have quite a few alternatives now with more coming.
And... believe it or not, many still use ink and paper for their research. Also, Google doesn't change the wording in the links, so if you find a paper Google doesn't like, you still get to read it unredacted.
I'm talking about the flaw in your logic when you say "The best and only method that respects freedom is for the reader to do their own research."
When you read a book or paper, whether it's in ink or your screen, the publisher + writer + many more people involved are doing research for you. Google happens to be one example.
So, individual perspective is a flaw? I'm not sure I understand and am pretty sure it's because you haven't stated your case clearly...
yes. by your definition "freedom loving users" can't exist. nobody can do their own research because the fact that you're even reading something in ink means you'll be influenced by the bias that exists in distribution channels and investors to the research.
(unless you're talking about few people that figure out physics and how reality works..
but even they are not immune to the same economy that pushes readers to one side or the other)
i said "flaw" because the more relevant question would probably be something like where do you wanna draw the line and why, rather than simply saying people should do their own research.
So, in your world ppl only research one side of a topic? Also, your flawed take assumes everyone believes everything they read. This is not the case...
And "freedom loving users can't exist?" What? You do know what the basic qualifiers for a false statement are? You use one for each of your statements.
Not everyone is like you, so you cannot use your own actions to claim 'nobody' will do this or that those types 'can't exist'.
so you can't figure out i'm using your definition.
but my apologies cuz i think it's going way off the topic now. i wanna point out what you see today, companies using certain algorithms to take away your freedom, doesn't necessarily reflect what a "trust network" could mean.
influence happens whether you agree or disagree on an idea. every info that you receive is delivered to you by a medium and rated either subtly or directly. if you're just gonna say "freedom loving users" and "do your own research" and count out every process that involves automation or AI, you're gonna be left with pretty much nothing because using ink or some manual human process doesn't make it different.
i doubt "freedom loving users" will be driven away, not to mention it could only happen after someone can define them to begin with. even if it does happen most users will flock to whatever is proven to be the best in the market. most likely it'll involve some AI and automation (if not complete) because right now it seems like the most suitable way to scale, if not the only way. hopefully it'll have some decentralization too.
Do you think Hive is the best blogging/gaming/social media platform? If so, why am I seeing a truly decentralized platform, like Pocketnet.app explode since the election and Hive being quite stagnant for a long long time? I signed up here in 2016, but find myself on other platforms more often than not.
I see you code, so may be biased towards algorithms. I don't code, so you'd really need to break it down into fine details to sell the idea to me. I hate laziness and this idea on the surface looks like the negatives outway the positives and one of those negatives is the user could become even more lazy relying on something like this.
The last thing we need a lazier generation than the Millennials.