[Terr_]

Yeah, pro/anti "algorithms" is too reductive, especially since the old status-quo was also an algorithm of people and processes.

I'd rather use a lens more like all the open-source/free-software concerns about controlling your own computer:

1. Can I see how the recommendation algorithm is intended to work? The site-owner says it works for my benefit, but what if they're mistaken, or lying?

2. What has it recorded about my interests, and how can I fix bad records that don't represent them?

3. When it's not working well--or harmfully exploiting my baser weaknesses--how can I change to a different one?

[nonrandomstring]

Kind of comes down to one of Neil Postman's questions

"Whose problem is it that it solves?"

It's possible to get some benefit from an algorithm/process, just as a side effect, that was never designed to work in your interest and is an opaque cloud service. Maybe the service is solving the network owner's problem of selling you to advertisers. If you want to maximise for "interest and relevance to my life goals" there's nothing to stop you running your own "algorithm" of course, except any obstacles put in your way by the data network owner. For that reason it's more important to pay attention to the freedom of the network (open API, federated, maximally distributed etc) than the algorithms that run on it. If you control the former you control the latter. HN (the network) seems to allow a lot from the plethora of viewers I've seen.

[DavidPiper]

This seems like the perfect place to once again recommend "Amusing Ourselves To Death" :-)

I also read "Technopoly" recently, and while it didn't have quite the same impact on me, I can't deny that it accurately describes the techno-political moment we're currently living in. Well worth the time.