8 ms·

For context: https://x.com/XBR/status/2088341967864320507?s=20 https://x.com/XBR/status/2088341967864320507?s=20

Cider9986 1mo ago
https://nitter.net/XBR/status/2088341967864320507?s=20 https://nitter.net/XBR/status/2088341967864320507?s=20 DeepL: >Starting August 16, Brazilian election law requires providers that use recommendation systems to exclude from their recommendations the official accounts of candidates registered with the Electoral Court and the posts from those accounts. >On X, these accounts and their posts will no longer be recommended in the “For You” tab during the election period unless the user explicitly follows the account. Official candidates are not suspended, and their content will remain available on their profiles. This measure is expected to affect the visibility and reach of these profiles and their content. >We are implementing this measure to strictly comply with TSE Resolution No. 23,610/2019. This is neither a penalty nor a change to X’s rules. We are committed to setting a new standard of transparency regarding our algorithms. Follow our work here: https://github.com/xai-org/x-algorithm https://github.com/xai-org/x-algorithm
- matheusmoreira 1mo ago
  > Official candidates are not suspended, and their content will remain available on their profiles. Sounds good to me. Filtering all recommendations is fair, and they are not censoring the profiles.
  - jfoster 1mo ago
    I don't know anything about this specific case, but in elections more generally, wouldn't filtering all candidates equally simply favor incumbents?
    - gpm 1mo ago
      Eh, I think it'd favour whoever has the bigger media apparatus running other accounts supporting them... which also seems like a weird decision.
    - matheusmoreira 1mo ago
      Brazilian electoral law tries to ensure all candidates have equitable access to media air time prior to the election. This filtering apparently exists to prevent distortions like X itself pushing candidates.
      - jfoster 1mo ago
        But incumbents have a natural advantage, right? So any type of control trying to ensure similar levels of access is clearly going to be to the advantage of incumbents.
      - marcosdumay 1mo ago
        > equitable Proportionally to their incumbency. Some company distorting the reach is way worse than favoring the incumbents. But the access is not even supposed to be equitable.

https://nitter.net/XBR/status/2088341967864320507?s=20 https://nitter.net/XBR/status/2088341967864320507?s=20 DeepL: >Starting August 16, Brazilian election law requires providers that use recommendation systems to exclude from their recommendations the official accounts of candidates registered with the Electoral Court and the posts from those accounts. >On X, these accounts and their posts will no longer be recommended in the “For You” tab during the election period unless the user explicitly follows the account. Official candidates are not suspended, and their content will remain available on their profiles. This measure is expected to affect the visibility and reach of these profiles and their content. >We are implementing this measure to strictly comply with TSE Resolution No. 23,610/2019. This is neither a penalty nor a change to X’s rules. We are committed to setting a new standard of transparency regarding our algorithms. Follow our work here: https://github.com/xai-org/x-algorithm https://github.com/xai-org/x-algorithm

matheusmoreira 1mo ago
> Official candidates are not suspended, and their content will remain available on their profiles. Sounds good to me. Filtering all recommendations is fair, and they are not censoring the profiles.
- jfoster 1mo ago
  I don't know anything about this specific case, but in elections more generally, wouldn't filtering all candidates equally simply favor incumbents?
  - gpm 1mo ago
    Eh, I think it'd favour whoever has the bigger media apparatus running other accounts supporting them... which also seems like a weird decision.
  - matheusmoreira 1mo ago
    Brazilian electoral law tries to ensure all candidates have equitable access to media air time prior to the election. This filtering apparently exists to prevent distortions like X itself pushing candidates.
    - jfoster 1mo ago
      But incumbents have a natural advantage, right? So any type of control trying to ensure similar levels of access is clearly going to be to the advantage of incumbents.
    - marcosdumay 1mo ago
      > equitable Proportionally to their incumbency. Some company distorting the reach is way worse than favoring the incumbents. But the access is not even supposed to be equitable.