Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill14564
I can't decide how I feel about the interview and the FB situation. Isn't the FB algorithm doing exactly what we want it to do and showing us the things we are interested in? Who gets to decide that this topic is dangerous to society and should be minimized or blocked?
FB uses "push" technology to put things in front of us. FB fills our pages with things it believes we are interested in. Google uses "pull" technology, it generates pages of results based on the interests we describe with our queries. If it is somehow wrong for FB to fill our pages with items that may be harmful to society, wouldn't it also be wrong for Google to return those same results?
Do we really want FB or Google to filter out items or results or articles that have the potential to be harmful to society if presented to the wrong individuals? If we do, who determines what is harmful and who should be allowed to see it?
|
I too, am a bit ambivalent about the whole issue (even though they are private businesses and the 1A doesn't apply). I can see both sides, but am a little concerned at the vast number of highly gullible people out there, that might take outrageous lies as the gospel and what might ensue because of them. I would guess that since the laws on the books are so woefully outdated, compared to where the technology currently sits, that the SCOTUS will be addressing a number of these types of issues in the coming years.