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 community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 14 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Aaron Miller Inactive
    Aaron Miller
    @AaronMiller

    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
  2. Richard Easton Coolidge
    Richard Easton
    @RichardEaston

    More than shadows lie on the streets of SF.

    • #2
  3. DonG Coolidge
    DonG
    @DonG

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

    • #3
  4. Michael Brehm Lincoln
    Michael Brehm
    @MichaelBrehm

    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
  5. Brian Watt Inactive
    Brian Watt
    @BrianWatt

    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
  6. Barfly Member
    Barfly
    @Barfly

    Arse nazi Zukerlielots, arse nazi Bidenpawful, 

    Arse nazi Sanderslout, argh narcisum-icky Ubaminashun.

     

    • #6
  7. aardo vozz Member
    aardo vozz
    @aardovozz

    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
  8. James Gawron Inactive
    James Gawron
    @JamesGawron

    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
  9. Slow on the uptake Coolidge
    Slow on the uptake
    @Chuckles

    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
  10. DonG Coolidge
    DonG
    @DonG

    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
  11. Joshua Bissey Inactive
    Joshua Bissey
    @TheSockMonkey

    Doug Watt: Flee you fools!

    It’s “fly.”

    • #11
  12. Clifford A. Brown Member
    Clifford A. Brown
    @CliffordBrown

    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
  13. Clifford A. Brown Member
    Clifford A. Brown
    @CliffordBrown

    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
  14. James Gawron Inactive
    James Gawron
    @JamesGawron

    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
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.