[ohthehugemanate]

So, a founding thought pattern of liberal democracy is that we prefer to allow some false negatives rather than punishing false positives. In justice, we prefer to let some bad people walk free, than to wrongfully imprison. Hence habeas corpus. In privacy, we prefer to let some people do bad things in secret, rather than violate one innocent person's privacy. Hence warrant requirements. In speech, we prefer to let some assholes say/print terrible things, rather than let one innocent thought be censored. Hence free press.

This was cutting edge stuff in the late 1700s, and seemed to be a major model in the 1800s. But I wonder how much it still applies, given how much the world has changed. It certainly seems like these principles are no longer in favor. Most countries have limitations on free speech ("hate speech" laws), no warrant protections on digital privacy, and even limitations on habeas corpus ("terrorist" special cases).

So when Facebook research demonstrated that algorithmic changes can influence people's actions (voting, positive posts, etc), a common response was "wow that's a lot of power. I hope the use it responsibly." The implication was "in favor of liberal democratic values". Well, maybe we DON'T want liberal democratic values any more. Your comment clearly expresses a common mindset, that we don't want the risks that come with those values.

I guess what I'm trying to say can be summed up with "i for one welcome our new algorithmic overlords."