• manxu@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    34
    ·
    7 hours ago

    This is more important that just AI overviews and establishes that companies are responsible for the editorializing they do. That’s much more important in algorithmic suggestions, which drive people into doing things they never would have done otherwise (see: Trump voters).

    I hope this stands through all instances and is applied generously, because so many people have been fucked up beyond recognition by following the trail of the algorithm, especially on social and video sites.

    • Holytimes@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      6 hours ago

      Iv always compared it to a library vs news station.

      A library collects and helps distribute information. But none of it is their own. While a news station driectly reports on and creates the information that is later catalogued.

      Its why in theory a reporter and new source should be held to a very high standard, while a library could in theory be full of bad, false, or other wise misleading information.

      A library can’t actually do anything about it realistically on a grand scale. Sure they can ban or bar repeated known offenders. But it’s a cat and mouse game. Same as a search engine. They can stop indexing people who are problems, but they have no real way to know ahead of time till it becomes a problem.

      Ai on the other hand is reporting and generating direct sources by its own actions. Its no longer just indexing.

      • Sir_Premiumhengst@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        5 hours ago

        Nor should the library do something! They’re in the job of archiving. The news people, that’s reporting, and it better be done accurately and conscientiously.