• 2 Posts
  • 27 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 3rd, 2023

help-circle












  • I really should have clarified this because it seems like a contradiction for me to state that down voting is bad, and to say that when you see something worthy of a downvote, downvote and move on.

    When I say worthy of downvote, I don’t mean a disagreement. I’m talking about people being obviously toxic. If malicious people want a reaction, giving it to them is not productive.

    For example, if I see a post about plant based meals, and a comment states “I’m not convinced that this is really helping the planet, I don’t see a problem with eating meat” - then engage politely.

    But a post like “fucking vegans lol, I’m going to eat 2 steaks tonight” is not worth replying to. Downvote and move on.


  • You actually don’t need to know what my previous statement was, because it’s totally boring.

    I changed “algorithm” to “algorithm/engagement machine” because the first posts were about how the word algorithm is used.

    To clarify, my gripe was not with edits, it’s to state that you edited for typos specifically.


  • Fixed it to be more precise.

    I suppose whether it’s an algorithm comes down to which definition you use.

    I think the colloquial definition is something which is user-dependant and very complicated.

    However, the dictionary definition is “a finite set of unambiguous instructions”, which fits my initial usage.

    Strangely though, the colloquial definition doesn’t fit the dictionary definition, because the YouTube/Twitter/Facebook algorithms are so ambiguous that the people designing them don’t really know what they’re doing, since they are evolving by themselves.







  • This comes down to the old debate over which philosophical framework is the basis for ethics and morality.

    If you’re a deontologist, you might say that Mr. Beast is not a good person because he intentionally exploits people when he provides medical care for someone, by uploading their reactions for engagement.

    However, a consequentialist would say that the outcome is more important; the means by which people receive medical care is irrelevant, and in this case, their treatment essentially necessitates compensation via engagement.