Collected Over Spread @collectedoverspread@qoto.org

@test Seems like posts from Mastodon and similar Fediverse applications appear in the "microblog" in Kbin, which I guess makes sense, but I'm still not sure about this dichotomy.

Test post from Mastodon to the "Threadiverse" (Kbin) @test

Today #Twitter released much of the code used for their recommendation algorithm https://blog.twitter.com/engineering/en_us/topics/open-source/2023/twitter-recommendation-algorithm

An machine-learning system relies on both an algorithm and training data so I wonder exactly what insights can be gained from what's been made public (I'm definitely not an expert in this area so I invite corrections and clarifications here). Regardless, it's an unusual level of transparency for a major social-media platform.

#SocialMedia #RecommendationEngines #RecommendationAlgorithms

@squirrel @eff How is EFF "glorifying" TikTok? It's entirely possible to object to TikTok and also oppose this legislation.

And "vendor lock-in"? Care to elaborate on this?

Is there a name for that stupid argument that goes something like, "There's no point in outlawing X because criminals who are intent on breaking the law a will find a way to get X anyway"? As if making X illegal won't make it harder to access, including to would-be criminals?

Yes, this remark is primarily motivated by recent events in the news (USA) but there are so many other things where this sort of argument comes up. I don't mean to say I support every sort of restriction that this is meant to argue against, but it's a poor argument most of the time.

"The media's lab leak fiasco" by Matthew Yglesias in Slow Boring https://www.slowboring.com/p/the-medias-lab-leak-fiasco

I'll admit, this is what finally convinced me that there was something wrong with how mainstream news media in the US covered the "lab-leak" hypothesis regarding COVID-19 early in the pandemic. I don't subscribe to the sort of "I told you so" attitude that some seem to have (there's still no real conclusion about whether a lab contributed to the pandemic, and "the" lab-leak hypothesis is a misnomer as it can encompass a wide variety of claims), but it lays out exactly how certain early lab-leak claims got mangled into conspiracy theories.

"CPAC Speaker Calls for Eradication of 'Transgenderism' — and Somehow Claims He’s Not Calling for Elimination of Transgender People" by Peter Wade and Patrick Reis in Rolling Stone https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/cpac-speaker-transgender-people-eradicated-1234690924/

I'm sorry, but what in the world is "not a real ontological category" supposed to mean? Obviously it exists as a category, even if people may disagree on the exact definition.

Honestly, I think "genocide" is hyperbolic, but you could say the same thing about "eradication." Hyperbole has been the soup of the day for years, and frankly I'm tired of it.

Can we sit down and talk about actual policy and take a moment to actually consider how it will affect people? (I'm questioning whether I'm part of the problem here by talking about this instead of the actual legislation that has been proposed in various US states recently that affect transgender people.)

"The fact that the NYT thought we needed yet another 'wokeism running amok on college campuses' piece, completely indistinguishable from all the other ones, is more interesting to me than the essay itself, which has absolutely nothing new or substantive to add."

Twitter thread by Thomas Zimmer: https://twitter.com/tzimmer_history/status/1631000637243641856

I admit that most perspectives on the culture wars I've come across lean towards the "cancel culture is a problem" perspective and I think it's good to see the "cancel culture doesn't exist" perspective laid out as well.

Although all this just seems to reinforce my belief that the question of whether cancel culture exists/doesn't exist/is bad/is actually good is horribly (dare I say hopelessly) muddied by unclear definitions and parameters. To me the term is poisoned: Even if I were to attempt to set a definition for my own purposes, I'd expect to be met with criticism over the definition and what should or should not fall under it. Ultimately I'd rather just discuss specific incidents and types of behavior rather than try to make some sort of generalization.

"It was not an opinion piece nor a prescriptive article, and it focused solely on year-over-year percentage increases for eggs, cereal, coffee, and some juices. The only mention of 'skip[ping] breakfast' occurred in the headline, seemingly designed to 'tantalize' readers and create anger-based engagement on social media — a clearly successful strategy known as 'engagement bait.'"

I should have guessed this was taken out of context...

"'To Save Money, Maybe You Should Skip Breakfast' WSJ Headline" by Kim LaCapria in Truth or Fiction https://www.truthorfiction.com/to-save-money-maybe-you-should-skip-breakfast-wsj-headline/

"...the app's sudden and undignified demise is due to an unannounced and undocumented policy change by an increasingly capricious Twitter – a Twitter that we no longer recognize as trustworthy nor want to work with any longer."

"Twitterrific: End of an Era" by Sean Heber from The Iconfactory https://blog.iconfactory.com/2023/01/twitterrific-end-of-an-era/

"Prediction Market FAQ" on Astral Codex Ten https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/prediction-market-faq

An introduction to #PredictionMarkets and how they work.

"[Q:] What can I do to help promote prediction markets? [A:] If you’re an ordinary person with no special expertise or skills, I think the best thing you can do is create a Manifold Markets account, bet on topics that are interesting to you, and create markets for any interesting topics that don’t have one yet."

Random thought: I notice a lot of people use "birdsite" to refer to #Twitter here, and now that Twitter is blocking links to #Mastodon maybe we should start calling it "elephant network" there.