Hey EU, that's not how any of this works. First of all, you do not have any control over that -- even if you demand it be done, there's no way to verify compliance. Second, there's always an "algorithm." There can't not be an "algorithm;" that would mean it would display nothing at all. Even the choice to just display tweets chronologically is still a choice, and implemented in the form of an "algorithm."
What you do have the power to do -- and what you should do -- is simply just straight-up block X entirely.
Worked brilliantly for the Brazilian government. Lulu pulled the plug for... a week? BlueSky suddenly got incredibly popular. Musk panicked and folded on every demand. And the amount of pro-Bolsonaro/coup-posting on Twitter sank like a brick.
to not piss off computer scientists and mathematicians with their dear word "algorithm", you may want to narrow it down with the expression recommendation algorithms.
An important thing to consider: Mastodon doesn't have an "algorithm" for presenting posts in your subscription feed.
That doesn't mean it "does not have an algorithm" entirely, though. There's a couple of non-trivial ones being used to recommend friends and calculate the trending posts and tags that show up on the front page, and they do actually consider likes/shares as part of scoring.
Yeah an algorithm is a series of mathematic instructions so from my armchair I'd say sort by date is not an algorithm. But to complicate things further there seems to be a sticking point with some that social media uses heuristics and not algorithms. I don't really understand the difference nor do I really care as this is all too much about semantics - /u/grue's final point is still spot on IMO. Why mess with letting a billionaire toy with the minds of your citizens? Let the USA have twitter and all that chaos to themselves.
ok so people who already have teslas should be fucked? if they will be forced to stop operation, some service offerings will not be available. nice
a car isnt a political statement for everybody, for some people its a fucking tool
edit: modifying software of cars in general is highly regulated. so banning tesla would create issues for people having those cars, i would love to “homebrew” them but hey, thats fucking illegal
As you said, they are services. They are not required.
edit: modifying software of cars in general is highly regulated. so banning tesla would create issues for people having those cars, i would love to “homebrew” them but hey, thats fucking illegal
I know this is unpopular and goes against the ideals of the early internet, but the open internet (especially social networks) is hugely damaging at the moment.
This isn't just "people having different opinions", but rather full-scale cyber warfare that's currently happening. It's also only going to get worse...
Propaganda works, and it works quite well. Nobody is fully immune.
So unless you feel like having Musk/Russia/China dictate your life (through forcing their shit agenda), banning their attack vectors is really the only play.
This is what I was worried about with tiktok being banned.
I don't have a tiktok. I don't like the concept. I won't be joining loops. I just don't like the core concept.
Now add in that it's a chinese spying tool, and I'm all the way out.
Buuuuuuut it does pose a tricky situation. Ban it, and set a precident that banning social networks is ok. Maybe they ban the fediverse next. We all know this country is run by billionaires and big business. We all know that the onlu reason tiktok is banned is because it competes with X, and Elon is basically president now.
So what stops them from banning the fediverse? Every single instance is now illegal. And since the fediverse is so unknown, it's not like there would be much pushback politically.
So. Ban the chinese spy tool, or defend net nuetrality?
Just do it. Stop yapping, start doing. The hemming and hawing and trying to be proper about this shit is infuriating. They don’t play by the rules so, fuck it - pull a Brazil and yank the rug out. It worked.
Democracies have to start making laws that stop assholes like Musk from interfering in their domestic politics - including and up to imposing heavy fines, service shutdown and personal criminal liability. If a person is not a national and domiciled in that country they should have no right to influence that election through campaign contributions or any other assistance.
The government is allowed to mess with cokes recipe because we don't want it to be too bad for people's health. I don't see why we shouldn't mess with algorithms to protect our personal and national health
Lets use their playbook:
The only way to protect the electoion in less than 2 months, is to block Twitter and Facebook in germany completely.
Let them go to the courts, I'm sure we can find a lawyer or 2 skilled enough to draw out the process for 6-8 weeks.
After that, whatever, unblock them, pay some "sorry we were wrong" money.
Then we have 4 years to solve the problem in a more permanent way.
Here on Lemmy, people who claim to advocate for freedom of speech and information, demanding for a social network to be shutdown, without even understanding the implications of it.
Meta is a super invasive data harvesting tool that creates shadow profiles for non users, which is now being used to bolster authoritatarianism. If you fail to grasp thar you are either dense or malicious.
Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.