12 ms·

> while betraying which way you, personally, are "polarized" on abortion I'm curious what side you think I fall on, seems to me it could be argued either way.

by PSZD 8y ago

> while betraying which way you, personally, are "polarized" on abortion I'm curious what side you think I fall on, seems to me it could be argued either way. I have no strong opinion on it and picked it purely because it's an evocative example. Perhaps too evocative! Some other examples might be terrorism, animal rights activism, transgender-as-mental-illness. Including both sides can be legitimately and understandably very upsetting for some people; in other cases we demand equal representation. Are situations like OP's an inevitable product of the tyranny of an algorithm, one that errs to the safer side of excluding results?

mmt 8y ago
> I'm curious what side you think I fall on That abortion is not murder, as you made the example of the presentation of such an argument in opposition to the presentation of something "useful". I realize, of course, that the word could have been meant more narrowly (such as "strictly pragmatic"), but that tends be less likely, even on here. > legitimately and understandably very upsetting for some people; in other cases we demand equal representation. [...] > errs to the safer side of excluding results? That's the the thing, though, I don't believe in a "right not to be offended" or a "right not to be upset" (legitimately, understandably, or otherwise). As such, I don't believe that these divisive cases ought to be treated any differently than the other cases you mention. None of this is to say that controversial topics don't attract a distinct problem. They do: trolls (for various definitions of the term). However, I believe that's more an issue with the quality of the content rather than the content itself, since a troll could (sometimes just as easily) take either side.
- PSZD 8y ago
  I do agree with this, but think there's enough societal pressure these days that it's very hard for a for-profit company to do.
  - mmt 8y ago
    I'm not sure being for-profit has that much to do with societal pressure as being ad-revenue-driven. However, this profit (or revenue) above all else model is something Google's unusual stock voting structure was supposed to address.

by PSZD 8y ago

mmt 8y ago

> I'm curious what side you think I fall on That abortion is not murder, as you made the example of the presentation of such an argument in opposition to the presentation of something "useful". I realize, of course, that the word could have been meant more narrowly (such as "strictly pragmatic"), but that tends be less likely, even on here. > legitimately and understandably very upsetting for some people; in other cases we demand equal representation. [...] > errs to the safer side of excluding results? That's the the thing, though, I don't believe in a "right not to be offended" or a "right not to be upset" (legitimately, understandably, or otherwise). As such, I don't believe that these divisive cases ought to be treated any differently than the other cases you mention. None of this is to say that controversial topics don't attract a distinct problem. They do: trolls (for various definitions of the term). However, I believe that's more an issue with the quality of the content rather than the content itself, since a troll could (sometimes just as easily) take either side.

PSZD 8y ago
I do agree with this, but think there's enough societal pressure these days that it's very hard for a for-profit company to do.
- mmt 8y ago
  I'm not sure being for-profit has that much to do with societal pressure as being ad-revenue-driven. However, this profit (or revenue) above all else model is something Google's unusual stock voting structure was supposed to address.