Alt Text:

An edited meme image featuring two stills from MegaMind. The top still shows Titan speaking to a the mayor, who is labelled “TikTokers getting censored by China” and saying “You have freed us!” overlaid. Titan has a US flag as a label, and is saying “Oh, I wouldn’t say freed, more like under new management.”

  • School_Lunch@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    7 months ago

    I never thought about it that way. Basically any algorithm that sorts posts could be argued to be censorship. But you can’t sort based on straight vote either because of fake accounts and bots. I guess we are just doomed to be manipulated.

    • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      I think they’re referring to US talk about possibly banning tiktok.

      Platform censorship is different than state censorship, and content curation is different than censorship.

      It’s “I think you’ll like this” vs “I don’t want you to see this”.

      • poke@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        7 months ago

        Platforms can still participate in the “I don’t want you to see this”/“I want you to see this” game. Governments aren’t the only parties that benefit from looking to control public sentiment.

        • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          I never said otherwise, I just said that there’s a difference between the three things. 😊

          A curation algorithm isn’t censorship, but a a biased one would be.

          • nymwit@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            How is bias not inherent to curation? Preference for one thing over another is bias. Curation is literally showing you things it thinks you’re biased to like. These groups aren’t revealing their secret sauce for curation algorithms so we’d never know anyway.

            • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              7 months ago

              There’s prioritizing the viewers preferences, and then there’s prioritizing the platforms preferences.

              If I don’t show you a video because I don’t think you’d enjoy it, that’s different from not showing it to you because I don’t want you to see it.

              User preference is a type of bias, but you wouldn’t typically call a platform “biased” unless it was putting it or some third parties preferences ahead of the users.

              • nymwit@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                7 months ago

                If I don’t show you a video because I don’t think you’d enjoy it, that’s different from not showing it to you because I don’t want you to see it.

                I wouldn’t disagree those are different reasons for not wanting to show a video but both are curations based on biases.

                I guess I just have a more neutral connotation for bias than “biased against you for others’ own interests” and so I didn’t find bias to be a useful term here to distinguish the reasons behind curation choices.

                Nothing really in disagreement here, just fiddling with common usage.

                • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  To me bias from a service or platform would be a bias that’s contrary to what was expected or requested.
                  It’s when they put their finger on the scale.

                  Bias, as a term, has heavy connotations of being unfair, or to have distorted results, which is why I kinda shy away from using it to describe “everything working as expected and no one would complain if they knew the details”.

                  If the grocer tampers with the scale so you take home less carrots than you wanted, that’s not fair, and so we would they they biased the scales.

                  Sounds like we agree, but I also like talking wording sometimes. :)

    • Orbituary@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      7 months ago

      So, you think it’s a protected right to speak freely on a privately owned platform? Tiktok, Xitter, etc., don’t need to make allowances for anyone. They exist to make money off of their users.

      It astounds me to this day that people don’t understand the basic tenets of social media: if it’s free, YOU are the product.

      • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        7 months ago

        Legally permissable censorship is still censorship. Just because you’re allowed to do something doesn’t mean that it isn’t that thing, and it’s silly to argue that because someone is allowed to do something means that people can’t complain about it.

        • Orbituary@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          Maybe, but the expectation that your can also speak freely on the platform is protected by the almighty capitalism compact we implicitly embrace as Americans and other (not all) 1st world citizens.

          Just because you think you have a right doesn’t mean you do.

      • horsey@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        That’s valid if someone was talking about the first amendment, but that wasn’t mentioned.