
Algorithm Is the Problem, Not Mark Zuckerberg - ceohockey60
https://interconnected.blog/algorithm-is-the-problem-not-mark-zuckerberg/
======
mgamache
Of course Zuck is the problem, but not for any fact checking lapse. He is the
architect of Facebook and therefore responsible for the business model and the
Algorithm. It's been clear for years now that the business model is paving a
road to disaster. The outrage/dopamine factory and closed loop reinforcement
combined with making personas available to the highest bidder should be
criminal. Maybe Zuck didn't know in 2015, but by 2017-2018 it was clear what
was happening on FB/Twitter/YouTube. The Cambridge Analytica scandal could
have provided an excuse and cover to pull the reigns in, but if he did, I am
unaware (except for losing the exact way CA was able to get it's data).

[The Cambridge Analytica scandal changed the world – but it didn't change
Facebook] [https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/mar/17/the-
cambr...](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/mar/17/the-cambridge-
analytica-scandal-changed-the-world-but-it-didnt-change-facebook)

------
Barrin92
Three problems with the post. First off I'm a little bit annoyed by
contrasting systemic problems of misinformation on these platforms with
anecdotes about long lost friends. Yes, that some person from Japan could
message the author is nice, but it's not really relevant given the levels of
the threat we're talking about here. It's just an emotional appeal, sort of a
reverse "but think of the children". (it also doesn't really require Facebook)

Secondly, the algorithm isn't to be blamed for anything. Algorithms don't have
agency (as of yet at least), they're tools and humans are responsible for
deploying them or turning them off if they misbehave. We cannot offload
responsibility on them, they're just machines.

Last point is the argument about due process. Due process is important within
the context of the law, but not everything on the world runs on formalistic
processes. That's not possible given how many micro-decisions we have to deal
with that are ambiguous. Zuckerberg is not required to uphold any due process
in any strong sense of the term when managing his platform. Norms might be a
better term, or maybe guidelines. But at a company level, there is significant
need for case-by-case decision making. Zuckerberg is not the state.

------
throwaway420123
> To be a real alternative to Facebook at the core, the social network’s
> algorithm has to be public and not arbitrary, transparent and not faceless.
> It has to have Due Process.

You know what else is public and not arbitrary, transparent and not faceless?
Most of the republican institutions of the world!

The solution to our problems with social media is very simple: Make it as
foundational as the rest of the public infrastructure that doles out Due
Process in our societies. Are our public courts enforcing private and public
wrongs without fault? Of course not, but imagine what private courts would be
like.

Bonus in the US: If the federal or state governments build their own many-to-
many digital distribution networks, well guess what? The 1st Amendment now
applies.

This whole blockchain governance approach is a lost cause. The problems with
social media are inherently political in nature and it will take the general
will of the people to support any solutions. Again, most of us already live in
a democratic republic that was explicitly designed to, you know, build
republican infrastructure the reflects the general will of the people.

Or you know, we could just LARP around as statesman on Twitter while trading
alt-coins. It is certainly much more fun to play dress up than to actually do
something. I guess as long as everyone is just aware that they're engaged in
some frivolous role playing then there is no harm, but don't for a second
think that we're actually going to achieve anything related to politics
without many years of hard work actively engaging with our existing systems of
government.

------
supercanuck
> Due Process means that you should be able to know the rules a system will
> follow if you participate in that system.

I don't understand why we are changing the meaning of words. Due Process means
a particular thing, and that is the legal requirement that the state must
respect all legal rights that are owed to a person.

Why are we now changing that to mean the rights of a person and their social
network?

If a corporation chooses to filter your speech on its property, then it should
be subject to the wraith of public opinion and vice versa, whether that is via
algorithm or via CEO Decree. The effect is the same. People need to start
making the distinction that they are using Facebook's property and their first
amendment rights are limited on another person's property.

I feel like when we muddy the waters by making Facebook seem like a quasi-
state, then we get into problems.

~~~
pochamago
Presumably the idea is that people value due process on its own merits, not
just as a legal mechanism. We feel very keenly that we should not be punished
merely for going against the spirit of the rules.

------
malandrew
> Due Process means that you should be able to know the rules a system will
> follow if you participate in that system.

That seems to me like an overly restrictive definition.

What if the rules of the system are that a single individual gets to make all
final decisions, such as in a monarchy? Is that due process?

The definition of due process I've always operated on is much broader and
includes mechanisms such as the ability to appeal decisions and present your
case. I would argue that an adversarial process is also part of due process. I
don't think you have have due process in a system that is one-sided with no
advocacy for all sides on equal footing.

I'm uncertain about the distinction that due process needs to be public. If
two parties behind closed doors go through a process whose rules they believe
to be fair beforehand, is that due process?

------
AnonC
Actually, you cannot seriously separate the algorithm from the man. The
algorithm is a reflection of Mark Zuckerberg. Anyone who argues otherwise
ignores years of widely known precedents of how Mark Zuckerberg (along with a
few others) drove Facebook and its algorithms to be this way. The algorithm is
what’s made him so rich and continues to allow him to have so much
shareholding control on the company.

------
moosey
I completely agree. I believe that social media algorithms should be declared
illegal human psychological experimentation. Anything other than supplying a
dumb pipe or obvious and simple mathematical explanations (for instance, a
calendar) should be outlawed as such.

No more 'showing you this based on your preferences' black holes of addiction.
No more conspiracy trails of nonsense.

------
JakeAl
The algorithm doesn't prevent me from sharing posts on my private Facebook
page from a professional ethics blog because they aren't PC enough for the
Facebook stasi. Imagine if the phone company or your email host prevented you
from communicating.

------
danemorgan
There can't be two problems?

