I feel like , as in the precise manner in which content is recommended to users, should be considered speech made *by* the platform, for which does not apply. But algorithms also depend on user content that Section 230 does apply on. Furthermore it would be hard to define an "algorithm": is Mastodon's chronological sort an ? So how should algorithms be regulated?

But anyway, is still much better than nothing:
nytimes.com/2022/04/28/opinion

Following up...

nytimes.com/2022/05/16/magazin

So creators are now being pumped out of the " engagement" assembly line that actively exploits sex workers, low-wage "chatters," and desperate customers alike. Sex work is one of the oldest jobs on earth, yet many still avoid the topic like a plague. When can sex work be normalized so that it can be free from the unregulated darkness of exploitation? When can sex workers feel safe doing their work solely on their own volition?

Show thread

Let's be clear: , from singers to , want to groom users to become diehard fans that can be squeezed for money, which is hard to do in a that has relatively more freedom (), hence they choose that require shorter attention span and allows for more personal censoring ( and allows deleting other users' comments under one's content).

washingtonpost.com/technology/

Reject modern personal worships, defend free discourse with !

The intended purpose of is to let us socialize, and forming a fake self doesn't help you. Avoiding expressing your views in fear of {making a fool / being full} of yourself is typically cowardice, but it is also true that responses from a large platform with a constantly-provoked populace (such as ) can overwhelm rational thinking. Well, at least we get human responses here, so there is a greener pasture, people just need to find it.

nytimes.com/2022/04/28/opinion

I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're referring to as , is in fact, /Twitter, or as I've recently taken to calling it, plus Twitter. Twitter is not a platform unto itself, but rather another binding component of a fully functioning attention economy made even less bearable by loud influencers, the playboy mentality and manipulative components comprising a full "free speech" platform as defined by the billionaire who thinks he's a hero.

This piece is not really straightforward... I think the gist is that your perspective come first when you're using or writing an essay/opinion. Write for your own enjoyment - don't overthink the reactions from your audiences - and then triage the feedback received from your viewers: ignore the abusive reactions from some, while engage wholeheartedly with others. Though, there is a fine line between this and ...

theguardian.com/media/2022/apr

I see the current war the first significant armed conflict that utilizes as a weapon: both sides - and - seek to control the narrative with sensational content, whether it is threats or calls for empathy. While we are glad to support the just side, it remains to consider if netizens will become unwilling combatants of a future war, no longer for the side we believe in, but for the adversary. After all, the political landscapes of many places are divided that way...

With zero reminders from me directly, only two people (one of whom might be relying on a LinkedIn reminder) remembered my birthday. (Apologies for those trying to find me on Instagram.)

I'd say a forced exit from F*cebook did teach me that a presence for (offline) friends is not worth it. If your existence to them solely depends on that presence, then those are not "friendships." I hope that the pandemic ends soon so that I can (re)create meaningful with people.

Sure, we say that need not legally uphold , but given the platforms' reach, they effectively have the power to curtail our speech, often beyond reasonable limits (like the phony bans for PR image). It is essential for users - including those we disagree with (so that we may debate against them, unless they have bad faith) - to seize full control of their social media experience from the platforms (specifically, freedom to dis/engage with others).

nytimes.com/2022/01/06/opinion

Our is sacred. It enables us to imagine. Imagination leads to ideas. As people exchange and improve ideas, solutions are born. Solutions make a better world.

Certain already took self-control away from many, reducing meaningful exchange of our ideas. Now, seeks to quash the sanctility of our minds by allowing corporations to freely manipulate our imagination.

Take back our mind before it is too late. There will be no better world for us if we cannot imagine one!

When teenagers don't have others whom they can entrust with their , they're up to manipulation.
nytimes.com/2021/10/22/technol

or word-of-the-mouth is not a doctor, yet people (of all ages!) go there for "help". In Chinese we call it 饮鸩止渴: drinking poison (m/disinformation, feel-bad content...) to quench thirst. Proper health resources must be rendered useful and accessible to everyone (while allowing anonymity & dignity) so that real help can be delivered to those in need.

"Time is money" is being treated too literally.
nytimes.com/2021/10/16/technol

companies are racing to push as many as possible off the cliff and into addiction. Just because some are leaving doesn't mean they're rid of the poison.

You are only a data point to them, so why care about these platforms?

So apparently the alleged "future" of is made of barbed-wire walled gardens:
newyorker.com/culture/infinite

> The future may look more like hundreds of Rayas, each with its own paying members and rigorous community regulation. But those users who don’t fit the mold or can’t pay may be left outside the walls, to continue living in a digital landscape that looks even worse than it does now.

I agree, but it doesn't have to be like this. Come to the !

Once again, someone's defending the indefensible:
nytimes.com/2021/10/13/opinion

Comics, rock music, TV... Dig a bit deeper and you'll know those are hysterias. Yet the author, a parent, assumes that is a "moral panic" and refuses to go further! How will kids know the pros and cons of anything if their parents can't even be bothered to decide for themselves?

I had a nice chat on digital parenting with @Soitgoes (thank you!) and I think insights like that are so rare these days.

Show thread

is not a psychologist. Tweens and teens deserve professional help on mental health, from parents, (IRL) peers, and counsellors. already failed if it is being scrutinized for teenage suicide!

...and guess someone is defending the morally-indefensible:
nytimes.com/2021/10/10/opinion

Yes, be skeptical of researches! So why even consider a company's own conclusions when they actively shut down public well-consented researches with privacy laws?
algorithmwatch.org/en//instagr

Show thread

Austin Huang ❤ You All's choices:

ieji.de

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!