Echo chambers in fair part were created by trying to increase user engagement. The thought being that by providing more of what the user liked, they could in turn provide more and more meaningful ads.
The problem is that as people engaged more with certain things they started seeing less of other things. In other words they stopped getting exposed to competing and conflicting ideas. Over a period of time it can readily get to the point where users only hear things that agree with them. Good intentions can readily inadvertently create echo chambers.
The problem is that the user can readily come under the impression that their algorithmically defined world view is normal. Because this same process occurs concurrently across any platform of note (ad dollars) the echo chamber effect is comprehensive. Everywhere a user turns idea X is good and idea Y is bad! The result of this is increased hostility and society becoming increasingly polarized. Sooner or later this will inflame tensions to the point where civil wars start to break out.
Unless your a porch pirate, how could this possibly cause trouble? Police work with companies all the time to help stop theft and fraud. Why is this news?
This is an anti-fraud system designed to help reduce online fraud. Think of this as a really sophisticated captcha that is designed to tell if your human or a bot. If certain patterns are detected the transaction is much more likely to be fraudulent.
Scripted attacks follow patterns because they are designed by humans and humans follow patterns. Take the email address example. It's easy to batch a script that creates unique email address by incrementing each address by one digit.
Anti-fraud software looks for things like this and many other factors. It's an arms race between those who commit fraud and those who fight it. Fraud raises retailers costs which increase the amount you pay. Software like this is good for consumers as it helps keep prices down. This is really much ado about nothing.
A commitment to run on clean energy by a given date that doesn't require breaking the laws of physics. This also appears to give enough time to adapt without bankrupting household and companies alike. This is long term enough thinking that the politicians proposing it can't get political benefit within a few election cycles? This appears to be at least somewhat feasible.
I think your premise would have likely been the case in the early days of the Internet. When I first started working with the Internet you didn't have very many people online who were over 40. I certainly remember old people who were proud of their lack of technical skills.
That being said, in the years since most of the US adult population has joined the Internet with 89% of adults in the US using it.
In the old days algorithms were indeed influenced by the data that they received. This certainly resulted in comical results as well as politically incorrect results. The problem is that algorithms are being trained to produce certain results.
Without algorithmic bias online media would lean conservative for the simple reason that the US has more conservatives than liberals. Yet somehow online platforms (Reddit, Facebook etc.) tilt overwhelmingly liberal.
This can only be a result of bias that has been put into algorithms and sanctioned.
Having that large of a disparity between the media and the masses shows that the public isn't buying what the media is selling. My point stands that the public doesn't trust the media. If you don't trust someone you will try to avoid paying for their services. The impact is that media outlets are going out of business in large numbers.
Journalistic standards have become nothing more than an idealistic concept. Take the Covington kid was tried and convicted in the media for what was effectively face crime. Even a basic check of the facts would have quickly shown that the kid was innocent of the accusations laid against him. Unfortunately it took a $250 million dollar lawsuit against the Washington Post to get them to correct their previous coverage.
Their journalists finally remembered their 'standards' and wrote up a much more accurate story. Too bad it took a $250 million defamation lawsuit in order for it to happen.
Simply because a website sources some of their news from large national sources does not make it fake news. Local news companies source stories from Reuters and the Associated Press all the time. Why do you think you can find the exact same article in a range of news outlets?
Presuming news to be fake simply because it comes from a different political perspective is hubris at best.
Perhaps this means they are finally going to admit that the Model X is a minivan? Let's just say that a search of pictures of the Model X actually being used off road results in a lot of very flat terrain...
The interesting thing will be to compare the comments left via the extension and those left directly on the website. It could be a good way of exposing just how prevalent censorship has become in the modern town square.
People were starting to raise concerns in 2014 and by 2015 concerns were becoming much more vocal. There was no rational reason to ignore these concerns especially when you are talking about billions in dollars of valuation.
While they had lawyers on call, I can't believe that was enough to dissuade sincere concerns when billions of dollars were at stake. Therefore an irrational reason must have driven this, and the only thing I've seen that is powerful enough to do that is political correctness. The fact that she was female is not the issue, the fact that political correctness trumped sanity when billions of dollars at stake is.
The issue was political correctness. Frankly it don't care if they are female, black or identify as an Apache attach helicopter. I very pointedly did not object to the fact that she is female. My issue is that people allowed the PC narrative to trump established best practices.
Theranos is a story I've been following for years. As you can see the concerns with their business practices go back years. Rational review never would have allowed Theranos to survive as it did.
Due diligence and best practices were sacrificed at the alter of political correctness. People were so desperate to have a female CEO and founder of a large company that they disregarded established safeguards. People need to learn that best practices and due diligence are there for good reasons.
I'm not objecting to having woman starting and running a business (my wife has done this - I think it's a good thing). I'm objecting to people disregarding established standards in the name of political correctness. Let this be a lesson that narrative should never trump best practices.
They have Amazon prime delivery trucks running around my neighborhood. Amazon has a history of building something for their own use, and then offering it to the public. I can easily imagine Amazon building out their fleet of delivery trucks and offering delivery services for third parties. Competition is good, so I look forward to this development.
Bitcoin costs less than it costs to mine it - but only if your paying for the electricity. Own someone else's computer and you can happily mine without worrying about pesky things like electric bills. Hell, some websites will run a miner on your computer while your browsing their web page.
The biggest problem with bitcoin is that there is no consideration as to the cost to the environment. Those that are dishonest can better exploit bitcoin than those that are honest.
We should simplify this and instead provide a liberal or conservative flag. Unfortunately many people value political implications over the truth. It's the sad reality of living in a post-fact world.
These problems affect poor people in liberal areas the most. However the housing crisis is also solvable. Three simple changes will remove the regulatory hurdles that prevent the market from resolving the housing crisis:
Remove setback requirements Remove height requirements Remove zoning restrictions for high density housing
Reducing regulatory overhead is a conservative value. It's also the only value that can solve the housing crisis as it allows the law of supply and demand to work. Unfortunately for current homeowners these changes will lower property values as the market adjusts to new supply. You can't solve the housing crisis by adding more regulations. Choose your values.
Remember 3D movies? Remember how Avatar was promoted relentlessly? 3D was a solution in search of a problem. While it allowed for a nifty new feature that could be sold for more money, it didn't solve a problem. It also had some nasty side effects that bother a lot of people. It didn't take long for 3D to be effectively abandoned. It simply isn't worth the cost to make something in 3D.
VR is the modern 3D. It's a solution in search of a problem, nasty side effects still included. If anything, VR is even worse than 3D. There is no Avator for people to relate to. Instead of buying one piece of technology you are buying one for each person. This makes 3D an expensive experience that can't be shared with anyone else. 3D is destined as a niche product that will never gain widespread consumer acceptance.
Let me save future would be technology investors a lot of money with two simple questions. Are you solving your problem or the consumers? E.G. Amazon phone solved Amazons problems and failed, whereas 3D printing solves consumer problems and will succeed. Can someone use your technology without looking like an idiot? Bluetooth earpieces, 3D and VR come to mind off the top of my head.
There is no such thing as a free lunch. I think this must be the most hard to learn lesson in human history. The second must be the law of supply and demand.
People keep trying to come up with ways to get around having to pay for things. Countless millions have been subject to poverty and starvation because some fool somewhere thought they could legislate there way around basic laws of economics (Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Soviet Union etc.).
You can't create something from nothing. Somebody has to pay for it with finite resources.
We humans keep trying to cheat the basic laws of economics, time and again, thinking that surely this time must be the time things will automagically work. How many millions will starve to death before this kind of foolishness is considered a crime against humanity?
I have a better idea, how about google fix the censorship issues with the versions of google outside of China first? You know, something about not being a hypocrite and all?
Slashdot Mirror
Echo chambers in fair part were created by trying to increase user engagement. The thought being that by providing more of what the user liked, they could in turn provide more and more meaningful ads.
The problem is that as people engaged more with certain things they started seeing less of other things. In other words they stopped getting exposed to competing and conflicting ideas. Over a period of time it can readily get to the point where users only hear things that agree with them. Good intentions can readily inadvertently create echo chambers.
The problem is that the user can readily come under the impression that their algorithmically defined world view is normal. Because this same process occurs concurrently across any platform of note (ad dollars) the echo chamber effect is comprehensive. Everywhere a user turns idea X is good and idea Y is bad! The result of this is increased hostility and society becoming increasingly polarized. Sooner or later this will inflame tensions to the point where civil wars start to break out.
Save the Internet. Kill the echo chamber.
Unless your a porch pirate, how could this possibly cause trouble? Police work with companies all the time to help stop theft and fraud. Why is this news?
This is an anti-fraud system designed to help reduce online fraud. Think of this as a really sophisticated captcha that is designed to tell if your human or a bot. If certain patterns are detected the transaction is much more likely to be fraudulent.
Scripted attacks follow patterns because they are designed by humans and humans follow patterns. Take the email address example. It's easy to batch a script that creates unique email address by incrementing each address by one digit.
Anti-fraud software looks for things like this and many other factors. It's an arms race between those who commit fraud and those who fight it. Fraud raises retailers costs which increase the amount you pay. Software like this is good for consumers as it helps keep prices down. This is really much ado about nothing.
A commitment to run on clean energy by a given date that doesn't require breaking the laws of physics. This also appears to give enough time to adapt without bankrupting household and companies alike. This is long term enough thinking that the politicians proposing it can't get political benefit within a few election cycles? This appears to be at least somewhat feasible.
What the hell happened?
I think your premise would have likely been the case in the early days of the Internet. When I first started working with the Internet you didn't have very many people online who were over 40. I certainly remember old people who were proud of their lack of technical skills.
That being said, in the years since most of the US adult population has joined the Internet with 89% of adults in the US using it.
https://www.statista.com/stati...
In the old days algorithms were indeed influenced by the data that they received. This certainly resulted in comical results as well as politically incorrect results. The problem is that algorithms are being trained to produce certain results.
https://www.washingtontimes.co...
http://www.canirank.com/blog/a...
https://www.nationalreview.com...
Let's get some hard data showing the bias that is present in censorship. The US is more conservative than liberal:
https://news.gallup.com/poll/2...
Without algorithmic bias online media would lean conservative for the simple reason that the US has more conservatives than liberals. Yet somehow online platforms (Reddit, Facebook etc.) tilt overwhelmingly liberal.
This can only be a result of bias that has been put into algorithms and sanctioned.
The overwhelming majority of news coverage of Trump was negative (92%).
https://www.westernjournal.com...
Even Fox news had more negative (52%) coverage than positive (48%).
This stands is sharp contrast to his approval rating by the public which ranges from 38% to 48% based on which poll you want to use.
https://www.realclearpolitics....
Having that large of a disparity between the media and the masses shows that the public isn't buying what the media is selling. My point stands that the public doesn't trust the media. If you don't trust someone you will try to avoid paying for their services. The impact is that media outlets are going out of business in large numbers.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world...
Journalistic standards have become nothing more than an idealistic concept. Take the Covington kid was tried and convicted in the media for what was effectively face crime. Even a basic check of the facts would have quickly shown that the kid was innocent of the accusations laid against him. Unfortunately it took a $250 million dollar lawsuit against the Washington Post to get them to correct their previous coverage.
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
Their journalists finally remembered their 'standards' and wrote up a much more accurate story. Too bad it took a $250 million defamation lawsuit in order for it to happen.
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
Fact of the matter is that journalism is dying because people don't trust journalists.
https://www.cjr.org/the_media_...
If you don't trust someone you don't value them. If you don't value someone you will try to avoid paying for their services.
They are starting new sites with a focus on local (State) level news. Most local news sites are owned by a handful of large companies.
https://www.businessinsider.co...
These people are obviously responding to a need for news that the public feels isn't being met.
https://www.cjr.org/the_media_...
https://www.acsh.org/news/2018...
https://thehill.com/homenews/m...
Simply because a website sources some of their news from large national sources does not make it fake news. Local news companies source stories from Reuters and the Associated Press all the time. Why do you think you can find the exact same article in a range of news outlets?
Presuming news to be fake simply because it comes from a different political perspective is hubris at best.
Just because we can do a thing, does not mean that we should do that thing. This is going to become more and more of an issue in the years to come.
Perhaps this means they are finally going to admit that the Model X is a minivan? Let's just say that a search of pictures of the Model X actually being used off road results in a lot of very flat terrain...
I like the idea of this Gab extension. However on a pragmatic level I'm inclined to think that you will probably be right.
The interesting thing will be to compare the comments left via the extension and those left directly on the website. It could be a good way of exposing just how prevalent censorship has become in the modern town square.
People were starting to raise concerns in 2014 and by 2015 concerns were becoming much more vocal. There was no rational reason to ignore these concerns especially when you are talking about billions in dollars of valuation.
While they had lawyers on call, I can't believe that was enough to dissuade sincere concerns when billions of dollars were at stake. Therefore an irrational reason must have driven this, and the only thing I've seen that is powerful enough to do that is political correctness. The fact that she was female is not the issue, the fact that political correctness trumped sanity when billions of dollars at stake is.
The issue was political correctness. Frankly it don't care if they are female, black or identify as an Apache attach helicopter. I very pointedly did not object to the fact that she is female. My issue is that people allowed the PC narrative to trump established best practices.
Theranos is a story I've been following for years. As you can see the concerns with their business practices go back years. Rational review never would have allowed Theranos to survive as it did.
https://www.darkintelligencegr...
http://fortune.com/2015/10/27/...
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
http://fortune.com/2015/10/27/...
https://finance.yahoo.com/news...
Due diligence and best practices were sacrificed at the alter of political correctness. People were so desperate to have a female CEO and founder of a large company that they disregarded established safeguards. People need to learn that best practices and due diligence are there for good reasons.
I'm not objecting to having woman starting and running a business (my wife has done this - I think it's a good thing). I'm objecting to people disregarding established standards in the name of political correctness. Let this be a lesson that narrative should never trump best practices.
They have Amazon prime delivery trucks running around my neighborhood. Amazon has a history of building something for their own use, and then offering it to the public. I can easily imagine Amazon building out their fleet of delivery trucks and offering delivery services for third parties. Competition is good, so I look forward to this development.
Bitcoin costs less than it costs to mine it - but only if your paying for the electricity. Own someone else's computer and you can happily mine without worrying about pesky things like electric bills. Hell, some websites will run a miner on your computer while your browsing their web page.
https://99bitcoins.com/webmini...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/l...
The biggest problem with bitcoin is that there is no consideration as to the cost to the environment. Those that are dishonest can better exploit bitcoin than those that are honest.
You make a good point.
We should simplify this and instead provide a liberal or conservative flag. Unfortunately many people value political implications over the truth. It's the sad reality of living in a post-fact world.
These problems affect poor people in liberal areas the most. However the housing crisis is also solvable. Three simple changes will remove the regulatory hurdles that prevent the market from resolving the housing crisis:
Remove setback requirements
Remove height requirements
Remove zoning restrictions for high density housing
Reducing regulatory overhead is a conservative value. It's also the only value that can solve the housing crisis as it allows the law of supply and demand to work. Unfortunately for current homeowners these changes will lower property values as the market adjusts to new supply. You can't solve the housing crisis by adding more regulations. Choose your values.
Remember 3D movies? Remember how Avatar was promoted relentlessly? 3D was a solution in search of a problem. While it allowed for a nifty new feature that could be sold for more money, it didn't solve a problem. It also had some nasty side effects that bother a lot of people. It didn't take long for 3D to be effectively abandoned. It simply isn't worth the cost to make something in 3D.
VR is the modern 3D. It's a solution in search of a problem, nasty side effects still included. If anything, VR is even worse than 3D. There is no Avator for people to relate to. Instead of buying one piece of technology you are buying one for each person. This makes 3D an expensive experience that can't be shared with anyone else. 3D is destined as a niche product that will never gain widespread consumer acceptance.
Let me save future would be technology investors a lot of money with two simple questions.
Are you solving your problem or the consumers? E.G. Amazon phone solved Amazons problems and failed, whereas 3D printing solves consumer problems and will succeed.
Can someone use your technology without looking like an idiot? Bluetooth earpieces, 3D and VR come to mind off the top of my head.
How about a different idea? How about all health insurance policies including some life insurance?
There is no such thing as a free lunch. I think this must be the most hard to learn lesson in human history. The second must be the law of supply and demand.
People keep trying to come up with ways to get around having to pay for things. Countless millions have been subject to poverty and starvation because some fool somewhere thought they could legislate there way around basic laws of economics (Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Soviet Union etc.).
You can't create something from nothing. Somebody has to pay for it with finite resources.
We humans keep trying to cheat the basic laws of economics, time and again, thinking that surely this time must be the time things will automagically work. How many millions will starve to death before this kind of foolishness is considered a crime against humanity?
I have a better idea, how about google fix the censorship issues with the versions of google outside of China first? You know, something about not being a hypocrite and all?