In the last 20 years it has become increasingly difficult to do sound and independent research at any level; Google and other search engines increasingly 'only' give you what the algorithm suggests the research needs.
Similarly consumers only get what the algorithms and the companies who pay for the advertising want us to see.
In the last 20 years it has become increasingly difficult to do sound and independent research at any level; Google and other search engines increasingly 'only' give you what the algorithm suggests the research needs.
Similarly consumers only get what the algorithms and the companies who pay for the advertising want us to see.
The really scary regulatory scenario was well demonstrated during the 2020-2 Covid lack of debate and limitation of an open forum discussion of all research data developed by truly independent researchers - the partnership of governments and the pharmaceutical industry simply adopted the most unusual suppression algorithm and used the media to call all disagreements "disinformation." When you look at how industry has a rotating lobby group of executives moving in and out of all our regulatory bodies, history, both recent and long term suggests that this laws and boards are easily co-opted.
However, Mr. Hartman is absolutely correct in his analysis: There needs to be tough regulatory supervision of all our search algorithms. Congress just needs to be mindful of designing as a consumer agency- and not as an industry advertising scheme to lull consumers and research into a truly 1984 governance system.
Mr. Hartman citation:
Social media companies have claimed that their algorithms are intellectual properties, inventions, and trade secrets, all things that fall under the rubric of these laws to advance and protect intellectual property and commerce.
And, indeed, the whole point of algorithms is to enhance commerce: to make more money for the social media sites that deploy them.
But are they promoting “the Progress of Science and the useful Arts”? Is amplifying hate and misinformation “useful”?
If not, the power to keep algorithms secret that Congress has given, Congress can also take away.
In the last 20 years it has become increasingly difficult to do sound and independent research at any level; Google and other search engines increasingly 'only' give you what the algorithm suggests the research needs.
Similarly consumers only get what the algorithms and the companies who pay for the advertising want us to see.
The really scary regulatory scenario was well demonstrated during the 2020-2 Covid lack of debate and limitation of an open forum discussion of all research data developed by truly independent researchers - the partnership of governments and the pharmaceutical industry simply adopted the most unusual suppression algorithm and used the media to call all disagreements "disinformation." When you look at how industry has a rotating lobby group of executives moving in and out of all our regulatory bodies, history, both recent and long term suggests that this laws and boards are easily co-opted.
However, Mr. Hartman is absolutely correct in his analysis: There needs to be tough regulatory supervision of all our search algorithms. Congress just needs to be mindful of designing as a consumer agency- and not as an industry advertising scheme to lull consumers and research into a truly 1984 governance system.
Mr. Hartman citation:
Social media companies have claimed that their algorithms are intellectual properties, inventions, and trade secrets, all things that fall under the rubric of these laws to advance and protect intellectual property and commerce.
And, indeed, the whole point of algorithms is to enhance commerce: to make more money for the social media sites that deploy them.
But are they promoting “the Progress of Science and the useful Arts”? Is amplifying hate and misinformation “useful”?
If not, the power to keep algorithms secret that Congress has given, Congress can also take away.