This is transparency theatre, not actual transparency.
There's no way to actually use this limited release to understand how or why any tweet is boosted, so we're in exactly the same boat we were in yesterday.
This sentiment has high correlation to driving conclusions from a very time limited information set. This isn't the only part that is going to be posted to github.
What is the net benefit from rushing to condemn something that can only be a net positive compared to the past alternatives? I don't understand the purpose of that approach. Help me.
The degree to which it is selective has yet to be determined.
Are you claiming total ignorance is superior to partial revelation? I think we would all do ourselves better to go live on a desert island and abandon everything about modern life. A shovel might be useful to bury our heads while we're there.
> Are you claiming total ignorance is superior to partial revelation?
I am claiming that this is at least sometimes true, yes. Not always, but sometimes.
You're the one claiming that partial revelation is always, without exception, superior to total ignorance. That seems unlikely. Propoganda is often partial revelation, are you saying it is always better to receive only propoganda than to receive no information at all?
I think there is objective value to understanding propaganda's origins and goals. Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it. Those who do not understand propaganda are highly likely to be controlled by it.
Propaganda can be a pretty vague term by the way. Can you describe how the public coming to a better understanding of the inner workings of the worlds most influential social media site is merely propaganda?
> I think there is objective value to understanding propaganda's origins and goals
Of course, but this requires the propaganda be contextualized, which wasn't a part of the situation I was suggesting.
> Can you describe how the public coming to a better understanding of the inner workings of the worlds most influential social media site is merely propaganda?
You're begging the question.
Does Twitters disclosure of parts of the algorithm used (but certainly not all!) actually lead to a better understanding of the inner workings of Twitter? Or is such a release actually serving some purpose beyond transparency?
If we had that, I'd agree it would be good. But I'm not convinced we do.
Elon's done the exact same thing before at Twitter with his selective disclosure of material to friendly journalists in the "Twitter files". That, in my opinion, led to an overall worse understanding of Twitter's actions, not better.
Then the analogy fails to hold up to reality. There's plenty of information to contextualize. Assuming by default everyone but you is a naïve doe lost in a forest and therefore lacks the intellect to contextualize anything for themselves is undemocratic.
>But I'm not convinced we do.
That would likely be because, as mentioned previously there is still more to come out; it's not possible to be reasonably convinced yet. Going back to the original question:
>>What is the net benefit from rushing to condemn something that can only be a net positive compared to the past alternatives?
There's nothing, that's what the point of this thread/argument is. The portion that Twitter has opened (or even simply committed to opening) is not remotely enough to hold them accountable.
The code they've released here is less helpful than a single Helm chart.
>>>What is the net benefit from rushing to condemn something that can only be a net positive compared to the past alternatives?
Because this is useless, and worse yet, it's pointless and blatant virtue signalling. I stood up in defense of Musk's private bid for Twitter, but there's nothing worth licking his boot over here. The suits don't care. The Open Source community gains nothing. The users will never see, interact with or modify the recommendation code. Nobody will be able to meaningfully audit anything until Musk stops selectively burning the books at Twitter HQ.
If Elon wants Twitter, he has the money to go get it. If he wants my respect, he's got to do an awful lot more than making "the algorithm" public. This release is so pathetic that it's probably colored my opinion of Musk more than any of the opinion rags I've seen yet.
> Assuming by default everyone but you is a naïve doe lost in a forest and therefore lacks the intellect to contextualize anything for themselves is undemocratic.
Luckily not a claim I'm making. It's better for conversation if you reply to what I say, not misrepresentations thereof.
> Going back to the original question:
And I replied to it already, but I'll reiterate: I don't believe this change "can only" be a net positive, what makes you believe that is the case?
What is "one" and what is "zero"? Are you saying that information can't ever be misleading?
Like if I tell you that your boyfriend has been having secret meetings with some woman you don't know, with full knowledge that the secret meetings are because she's a photographer and he's planning to propose, have I improved things by disclosing the information to you in that manner? Were my actions a "net positive"?
I did find the article more enlightening than the source code. I always suspected the quality of a tweet did not factor in to its promotion, only its engagement, and now they have confirmed this to be the case. Now I understand better why twitter seems to be filled with people angrily retweeting what I consider to be low quality clickbait tweets.
As long as they don’t try to tackle tweet quality at all separately from engagement twitter will remain unappealing to me.
What does "quality of a tweet" mean, how might you measure it?
We pretty much knew this is how all social media works, becuase a) engagement is what they want, why wouldn't they be optimizing for it, and b) how else might you measure 'quality'? Back when this started, I have no trouble believing some well-intentioned engineers thought that engagement was a good proxy for quality. A bunch of users give it the "like", isn't that a collective assessment of quality? Who is to say what quality is, overruling the users in aggregate?
I agree it has the negative effects you mention; and I've read lots of people writing about this, it's of course not a new observation.
But I agree it's good to have an explanation of what's going on, even when parts of are what we basically knew was happening on all social media networks. confirmed is better than "basically knew", for understanding how these things that effect our experiences (and our society) work.
But why not shower Twitter with praise for doing more than any other social media company in a similar market position? In the best case scenario, we might inspire a transparency arms race. In the worst case, we merely signal that transparency of any kind is rewarded, and that's a good thing if we want more transparency.
> But why not shower Twitter with praise for doing more than any other social media company in a similar market position?
Because selective disclosure is often propaganda. If a third party had chosen what the release or verified this is what's actually running in production, I would praise them.
Considering Elon's incessant lying, self-promotion, and manipulation, it's impossible to be complimentary of this at all. Everything he does is in bad faith.
This is definitely incorrect. Weights for images, links, misspellings, etc are all laid out in the code and have been detailed by multiple people on Twitter already.
There's no way to actually use this limited release to understand how or why any tweet is boosted, so we're in exactly the same boat we were in yesterday.