I don't like this particular lie. It seems like as soon as we find it acceptable to tell it, we get to choose how complex or user-hostile the algorithm gets to be while still telling the same lie.
It's kinda like saying that a product contains "no chemicals." There's a truth that people are reaching for, but the language used is deceptive. Clearly, "select * from my_table order by insertion_time" is handled by an algorithm... but it isn't ranking content by hidden metrics, maximizing engagement, etc. that people mean by "algorithm."
When tools are used to do harm, they cease to have neutral meanings. Chemistry is villainized because of DDT; medicine is villainized because of thalidomide, AR-15s are villainized because of mass shootings, etc. Can we expect more nuance of a lay-audience?
In the common language used these days, "the algorithm" refers to the sorting/reranking companies like Facebook and now Twitter do to attempt to show you posts you're most likely to engage with. I think the vast majority of people reading that Glass has "no algorithm" will understand this.
In a world where people nitpick each other to death, sure. Meanwhile, in the real world, language has meaning beyond the literal expression.
And I'm willing to put money on the fact that their target audience understands perfectly what "no algorithm" means. Heck, even the people complaining know what it means, they just like being right.
Algorithm for discovery and algorithm for sorting are two different things as well. I’d love to see recommendations for people to follow. But from those I follow I want a chronological order.
When tools are used to do harm, they cease to have neutral meanings. Chemistry is villainized because of DDT; medicine is villainized because of thalidomide, AR-15s are villainized because of mass shootings, etc. Can we expect more nuance of a lay-audience?