> Are you claiming total ignorance is superior to partial revelation?
I am claiming that this is at least sometimes true, yes. Not always, but sometimes.
You're the one claiming that partial revelation is always, without exception, superior to total ignorance. That seems unlikely. Propoganda is often partial revelation, are you saying it is always better to receive only propoganda than to receive no information at all?
I think there is objective value to understanding propaganda's origins and goals. Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it. Those who do not understand propaganda are highly likely to be controlled by it.
Propaganda can be a pretty vague term by the way. Can you describe how the public coming to a better understanding of the inner workings of the worlds most influential social media site is merely propaganda?
> I think there is objective value to understanding propaganda's origins and goals
Of course, but this requires the propaganda be contextualized, which wasn't a part of the situation I was suggesting.
> Can you describe how the public coming to a better understanding of the inner workings of the worlds most influential social media site is merely propaganda?
You're begging the question.
Does Twitters disclosure of parts of the algorithm used (but certainly not all!) actually lead to a better understanding of the inner workings of Twitter? Or is such a release actually serving some purpose beyond transparency?
If we had that, I'd agree it would be good. But I'm not convinced we do.
Elon's done the exact same thing before at Twitter with his selective disclosure of material to friendly journalists in the "Twitter files". That, in my opinion, led to an overall worse understanding of Twitter's actions, not better.
Then the analogy fails to hold up to reality. There's plenty of information to contextualize. Assuming by default everyone but you is a naïve doe lost in a forest and therefore lacks the intellect to contextualize anything for themselves is undemocratic.
>But I'm not convinced we do.
That would likely be because, as mentioned previously there is still more to come out; it's not possible to be reasonably convinced yet. Going back to the original question:
>>What is the net benefit from rushing to condemn something that can only be a net positive compared to the past alternatives?
There's nothing, that's what the point of this thread/argument is. The portion that Twitter has opened (or even simply committed to opening) is not remotely enough to hold them accountable.
The code they've released here is less helpful than a single Helm chart.
>>>What is the net benefit from rushing to condemn something that can only be a net positive compared to the past alternatives?
Because this is useless, and worse yet, it's pointless and blatant virtue signalling. I stood up in defense of Musk's private bid for Twitter, but there's nothing worth licking his boot over here. The suits don't care. The Open Source community gains nothing. The users will never see, interact with or modify the recommendation code. Nobody will be able to meaningfully audit anything until Musk stops selectively burning the books at Twitter HQ.
If Elon wants Twitter, he has the money to go get it. If he wants my respect, he's got to do an awful lot more than making "the algorithm" public. This release is so pathetic that it's probably colored my opinion of Musk more than any of the opinion rags I've seen yet.
> Assuming by default everyone but you is a naïve doe lost in a forest and therefore lacks the intellect to contextualize anything for themselves is undemocratic.
Luckily not a claim I'm making. It's better for conversation if you reply to what I say, not misrepresentations thereof.
> Going back to the original question:
And I replied to it already, but I'll reiterate: I don't believe this change "can only" be a net positive, what makes you believe that is the case?
I am claiming that this is at least sometimes true, yes. Not always, but sometimes.
You're the one claiming that partial revelation is always, without exception, superior to total ignorance. That seems unlikely. Propoganda is often partial revelation, are you saying it is always better to receive only propoganda than to receive no information at all?