[ExI] ok this explains it

spike at rainier66.com spike at rainier66.com
Sat Apr 30 20:37:58 UTC 2022



From: spike at rainier66.com <spike at rainier66.com> 
Sent: Saturday, 30 April, 2022 1:07 PM
To: 'ExI chat list' <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Cc: spike at rainier66.com
Subject: RE: [ExI] ok this explains it




…> On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat
Subject: Re: [ExI] ok this explains it


 >>…But Ari makes it sound like exposing that and stopping that is a bad thing.  I don’t understand.  Can anyone explain please?  spike    

>…What if a media company wanted to discriminate against some political party?  It's a private company, so it's not illegal - true?



>>…Making this transparent would be a terrible idea… billw

>…So… this “news” guy appears to be arguing that NOT discriminating against a particular party is a bad thing, but discriminating against a political party is a good thing.  Well, is it?  MSNBC, is that it?  Was this the most epic self-own ever?  Was it done for humor? spike


Billw, an idea just occurred to me.

Reliable sources say Twitter employees are having a collective meltdown over the Musk purchase and of course that opens them to ridicule.  But… if true, why is it a crisis for Twitter employees?  

The reason I missed this before is that I wasn’t asking the right question.  The right question is this: 

What do Twitter employees do?

If I owned a social medium, my primary interest would be figuring out how to make it earn enough cash to pay all those employees.  To do that requires that most of your employees are selling ad space.  Ja?  A few managers, a few accountants, a few trainers, the rest: selling ad space.  So… their job doesn’t really change at all under new ownership.  I don’t see why it would.  Do you?

But what if… your social medium was employing people to override or enhance the filtering algorithm?  It is pretty easy to see that Musk (being a businessman who has indicated he has no interest in discriminating against some political party) would lay off all the human content moderators, or reassign them to something that makes actual money, such as selling ad space.  That’s what I would do.

So, I could see where that would be a huge blow to those whose current job is to moderate content.  They don’t want to sell ad space.  They want to moderate content.

OK so… what if… Twitter human content moderators exist.  What do they do, and how do they do it?  What criteria do they use to determine if they will override the moderation software?  If Musk makes his filtering algorithm public, then he wouldn’t need humans in the loop overriding the software, ja?  So… out they go adios amigo.

Assuming one is a Twitter employee but not a Twitter human moderator, is there a downside to the Musk purchase?  What is it please?



















The mind boggles.




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20220430/fe13d025/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 15277 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20220430/fe13d025/attachment.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 9742 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20220430/fe13d025/attachment-0001.jpg>

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list