Bootstrap wrote: ↑Thu Mar 21, 2024 1:51 pm
I'd like to have a discussion on social media algorithms, which come up in a lot of other threads.
... most people think the other side is favored by social media algorithms. No matter which side you are on. So how do you fairly measure bias in social media promotion algorithms?
I think a person might get a fair idea by seeing what sorts of things are challenged, 'Fact-Checked', or covered up with a "Violent or Graphic Content" warning (on FaceBook). A couple of days ago FB covered up a picture of some sheep, and a quotation from the KJV, John 10:27-28, and gave that warning.
Meanwhile, they have no problem saying that a sexually posed woman with only the bare essentials covered is "not against their guidelines". Then they violate their own "standards" by allowing a frontal view or a video of a woman who is completely naked, but painted. They call that 'art'. Also, there's the "free the nipple" nonsense. All a pornography pusher has to do is put a baby in the video, and suddenly it's OK with them to show a frontal view of a topless woman.
A friend's account was taken over by prostitution pushers in VietNam, and they wouldn't do anything about it, even after numerous people reported it as a stolen profile.
A contributor on the FB group for Plautdietsch Genealogy & History has repeatedly been banned because he made historical references to "H!tl3r" or "N@zi" (without the misspelling I used here, taken from his current practice). (Actually, this is just a guess as to why they are after him all of the time.)
Congregation: Gospel Haven Mennonite Fellowship, Benton, Ohio (Holmes Co.) a split from Beachy-Amish Mennonite.
Personal heritage & general theological viewpoint: conservative Mennonite Brethren.