One Algorithm to Find Them

 

Three Algorithms for the Social Media kings under the sky,
Seven for the Political lords in their halls of stone,
Nine for Journalists doomed to die,
One for the Google Lord on his dark server
In the Land of San Francisco where the Shadows lie.
One Algorithm to rule them all, One Algorithm to find them,
One Algorithm to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
In the Land of San Francisco where the Shadows lie.

Flee you fools!

Published in Humor
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s growing community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

There are 14 comments.

  1. Aaron Miller Member

    Bill Whittle made a pretty good video on the subject. 

    I’m not entirely sure what the response should be. He suggests breaking them up, but only after highlighting other monopolies that we tolerate. If we can force them to act neutrally like the public utilities (open forums, not publishers with editorial rights) they claim to be, would that negate the need for anti-trust action?

    • #1
    • June 25, 2019, at 7:00 AM PDT
    • 3 likes
  2. Richard Easton Member

    More than shadows lie on the streets of SF.

    • #2
    • June 25, 2019, at 7:27 AM PDT
    • 17 likes
  3. DonG Coolidge

    The cool kids these days shorten words. Thus ‘algo’ instead of ‘algorithm’. 

    • #3
    • June 25, 2019, at 7:29 AM PDT
    • 2 likes
  4. Michael Brehm Member

    Richard Easton (View Comment):

    More than shadows lie on the streets of SF.

    One does not simply walk into San Francisco without donning sturdy rubber boots.

    • #4
    • June 25, 2019, at 8:08 AM PDT
    • 9 likes
  5. Brian Watt Member

    Mordor was at least more honest in being overtly evil than are the executives who run the Silicon Valley social media giants who lie about how good, fair, and unbiased their platforms are.

    • #5
    • June 25, 2019, at 8:26 AM PDT
    • 5 likes
  6. Barfly Member

    Arse nazi Zukerlielots, arse nazi Bidenpawful, 

    Arse nazi Sanderslout, argh narcisum-icky Ubaminashun.

     

    • #6
    • June 25, 2019, at 9:04 AM PDT
    • 5 likes
  7. aardo vozz Member

    Brian Watt (View Comment):

    Mordor was at least more honest in being overtly evil than are the executives who run the Silicon Valley social media giants who lie about how good, fair, and unbiased their platforms are.

    Good point. If I were from Mordor I might be offended by the comparison.

    • #7
    • June 25, 2019, at 9:46 AM PDT
    • 3 likes
  8. James Gawron Thatcher

    Aaron Miller (View Comment):

    Bill Whittle made a pretty good video on the subject.

    I’m not entirely sure what the response should be. He suggests breaking them up, but only after highlighting other monopolies that we tolerate. If we can force them to act neutrally like the public utilities (open forums, not publishers with editorial rights) they claim to be, would that negate the need for anti-trust action?

    Aaron,

    This is an interesting question and one worth pursuing. Whittle very clearly described the difference between a publisher and carrier (platform). The social media giants can’t afford to be publishers and this means the gov. has a great deal of leverage over them. They have been granted the protected status of a carrier (platform) and what has been granted can be taken away.

    Of course, the crafting of the law that would regulate this must be done very carefully. I think a well-written bill doing this plus privacy control would be a very popular bill indeed.

    Regards,

    Jim

    • #8
    • June 25, 2019, at 12:30 PM PDT
    • 3 likes
  9. Slow on the uptake Thatcher

    James Gawron (View Comment):
    I think a well-written bill doing this plus privacy control would be a very popular bill indeed.

    Indeed.

    And broadly supported by both sides of the aisle (not).

    • #9
    • June 25, 2019, at 12:50 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  10. DonG Coolidge

    James Gawron (View Comment):
    If we can force them to act neutrally like the public utilities (open forums, not publishers with editorial rights) they claim to be, would that negate the need for anti-trust action?

    uhhhh. my public utility is all social justice warrior. We pay for a wood pellet plant, but don’t run it because it is inefficient. We have a few coal powered plants, but we shut one down, because we don’t like coal. We got solar and wind and rebates for all manner of eco things. There is also redistribution based on ability to pay. Plus, 10% of revenue is used to fund other city pet projects like housing vouchers. Public utility is a low bar for politically neutral.

    • #10
    • June 25, 2019, at 4:38 PM PDT
    • 6 likes
  11. Joshua Bissey Coolidge

    Doug Watt: Flee you fools!

    It’s “fly.”

    • #11
    • June 26, 2019, at 10:03 AM PDT
    • 1 like
  12. Clifford A. Brown Contributor

    DonG (View Comment):

    The cool kids these days shorten words. Thus ‘algo’ instead of ‘algorithm’.

    The OG AI is Al Goryithm, inventer of the internet that binds them together.

    • #12
    • July 11, 2019, at 10:44 PM PDT
    • Like
  13. Clifford A. Brown Contributor

    James Gawron (View Comment):

    Aaron Miller (View Comment):

    Bill Whittle made a pretty good video on the subject.

    I’m not entirely sure what the response should be. He suggests breaking them up, but only after highlighting other monopolies that we tolerate. If we can force them to act neutrally like the public utilities (open forums, not publishers with editorial rights) they claim to be, would that negate the need for anti-trust action?

    Aaron,

    This is an interesting question and one worth pursuing. Whittle very clearly described the difference between a publisher and carrier (platform). The social media giants can’t afford to be publishers and this means the gov. has a great deal of leverage over them. They have been granted the protected status of a carrier (platform) and what has been granted can be taken away.

    Of course, the crafting of the law that would regulate this must be done very carefully. I think a well-written bill doing this plus privacy control would be a very popular bill indeed.

    Regards,

    Jim

    I don’t think a bill need be written. Current law provides protection so long as the social media giants behave as neutral platforms. Private parties should take them to court as publishers now. Claim, with publicly available evidence, that you will prove them publishers.

    Then the SEC should roll in on them for failing to inform stockholders and the SEC of their decision to assume that risk. And, as they flip-flop among positions, file an FEC complaint for their obvious, very large and quantifiable contributions to the Democrats. A publisher may take sides, like a newspaper, but then the publisher must protect intellectual property and must guard against libel in its publications.

    Toss them on the horns of a dilemma.

    • #13
    • July 11, 2019, at 10:52 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  14. James Gawron Thatcher

    Clifford A. Brown (View Comment):

    James Gawron (View Comment):

    Aaron Miller (View Comment):

    Bill Whittle made a pretty good video on the subject.

    I’m not entirely sure what the response should be. He suggests breaking them up, but only after highlighting other monopolies that we tolerate. If we can force them to act neutrally like the public utilities (open forums, not publishers with editorial rights) they claim to be, would that negate the need for anti-trust action?

    Aaron,

    This is an interesting question and one worth pursuing. Whittle very clearly described the difference between a publisher and carrier (platform). The social media giants can’t afford to be publishers and this means the gov. has a great deal of leverage over them. They have been granted the protected status of a carrier (platform) and what has been granted can be taken away.

    Of course, the crafting of the law that would regulate this must be done very carefully. I think a well-written bill doing this plus privacy control would be a very popular bill indeed.

    Regards,

    Jim

    I don’t think a bill need be written. Current law provides protection so long as the social media giants behave as neutral platforms. Private parties should take them to court as publishers now. Claim, with publicly available evidence, that you will prove them publishers.

    Then the SEC should roll in on them for failing to inform stockholders and the SEC of their decision to assume that risk. And, as they flip-flop among positions, file an FEC complaint for their obvious, very large and quantifiable contributions to the Democrats. A publisher may take sides, like a newspaper, but then the publisher must protect intellectual property and must guard against libel in its publications.

    Toss them on the horns of a dilemma.

    Cliff,

    Sounds like a plan. If this were to happen I’d prefer it to forcing new legislation.

    Regards,

    Jim

    • #14
    • July 12, 2019, at 7:43 AM PDT
    • 1 like