[Fnoord]

> What people are concerned about are the newsfeeds and timelines, specifically. Companies like Facebook and Twitter and YouTube love to pretend that their newsfeed/timeline products are just like chat apps or phone calls--neutral messaging platforms.

> They're not. And the specific reason they are not, is the algorithmic timeline and content suggestions.

They're not because they're public, akin to broadcasting. One to many. In the past such has always been more or less under careful control. Public broadcast TV and radio were under control of dogma and moral, and it wasn't feasible to make your own. Publishers could opt not to release a manuscript if it didn't fit their ideology.

Consider the following thought experiment: "Twitter and Facebook were exactly as popular as they are now but they'd show everything only chronologically (last on top). Do you recon the control problem would be solved at that point?"

Now consider the following thought experiment: "Twitter and Facebook are only private 1:1 conversations. Do you recon the control problem would be solved at that point?"

In example #2 (regardless of it being chronologically shown or via an algorithm) the communication -whatever it might be- only goes to one person, not the general public. This contains the strength of propaganda (such as fake news or hate speech) greatly.

Also, remember that there are all kind of biases [1] even while we're not aware of them or when we are weak to fall for them.

[1] It is worth summing them all up but I am by no means an expert on this subject. I'm currently reading the book "The Confidence Game" by Maria Konnikova and it explains various of them in detail.

[51lver]

It absolutely is not broadcast as long as an algorithm is selecting posts for you. Air TV is broadcast. The radio is broadcast. Those platforms do not not selectively choose their audience to maximize engagement. There's no innocent one to many relationship here. Facebook actively gives extremist material to extremists because their robot thinks it will make them use the platform more. It's not the same message going to all subscribers. That is why they are responsible.

[Fnoord]

My point was that neither phenomenons are exactly new.

One-to-many relationships aren't innocent to begin with; they've always been under public scrutiny, a magnifying glass. Algorithms might make it easier to find what you seek (I can assure you they do not always as I've witnessed on Facebook, Google, Amazon, Netflix, Apple -- you name it).

Bubbles are also not new. If you were a Catholic in The Netherlands in 1950 or 1960 then you watched Catholic TV and listened to Catholic radio and went to a Catholic church on Sunday and listened to a Catholic preacher and a Catholic pope telling you what to think about atheism, abortion, HIV, anti-conception, marriage, homosexuality and what have you and you went to a Catholic dancing. You came home with a Catholic partner of the opposite sex. Oh and you went to a Catholic school. Protestants? They exist, somewhere, but not in your myopic world. [Full disclosure: I grew up as an atheist child of Protestant parents in a Catholic area.]

Its a matter of choosing your overlord(s)...