undefined | Better HN

0 pointsspecialist6y ago0 comments

Amen.

Recommenders, like bureaucracies, are misanthropic (anti-human).

The rules are meant to remove human judgement. While denying the baked in bias and dysfunction of the imposed ruleset.

Per Goodhart's Law, they arbitrarily state some things are worthwhile & meaningful, and everything else are not.

Black boxes which thwart inspection, transparency, accountability, explanation.

Forgive me for flogging this horse; I do have a point.

Also missing from online social networks are the concepts of fair and impartial adjudication.

Curation, adjudication, transparency, accountability... I'm sure we're omitting many other missing features. Because we're too close to the problem.

Going meta meta here: the common trait of all these "regulation arbitrage" unicorns is they profit by the destruction of our society's laws, checks & balances, social norms, and so forth.

0 comments

floatingatoll6y ago

Can adjudication be impartial with regards to civility?

specialistOP6y ago

I mean impartial in the sense that the adjudicators (judge, jury, arbiters, moderators, whomever) are not beholden to the publisher. So a third party. Like our court system is supposed to be.

IMHO, there's not enough daylight between ombudspersons and their paymasters.

I have no fixed opinion for standards of civility. I'm just trying to capture the notion that some dialog, rhetoric is out of bounds, as determined by the intended audience (context).

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse