Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

mdjank t1_j34gvh4 wrote

Social media makes it easier for people to find their communities specifically because of the way statistical learners (algorithms) work. Statistical learners work by using statistics to predict the probabilities of specific outcomes. It matches like with like. Regulating the functionality of statical learners would require the invention of new math that supersedes everything we know about statistics.

Regulation is easier said than done.

It is not possible to regulate how the algorithms work. That would be like trying to regulate the entropy of a thermodynamic system. Eliot Nash won a Pulitzer for his paper on equilibriums. Statistical Learners solve Nash Equilibriums the hard way.

One thing people suggest is manipulating the algorithm's inputs. This only changes the time it takes to reach the same conclusions. The system will still decay into equilibrium.

Maybe it's possible to regulate how and where algorithms are implemented. Even then, you're still only changing the time it takes to solve the Nash Equilibrium. I would love to see someone disprove this claim. Disproving that claim would mean the invention of new math that can be used to break statistics. I would be in Vegas before the next sunrise with that math on my belt.

Any effective regulation on the implementation of statistical learners would be indistinguishable from people just deleting their social media. Without the Statistical Learners to help people more effectively sort themselves into communities, there is no social media. These algorithms are what defines social media.

To claim that people wouldn't be able to find their communities without social media is naive at best. People were finding their communities online long before social media used statistical learners to make it easier. If anything, social media was so effective that other methods could not compete. It has been around so long; it just seems like the only solution.

P.S. Your thinly veiled argumentum ad passiones isn't without effect. Still, logos doesn't care about your pathos.


Pseudonymico t1_j34hg0r wrote

> P.S. Your thinly veiled argumentum ad passiones isn't without effect. Still, logos doesn't care about your pathos.

Good grief, are we back in Plato’s Academy or something?


mdjank t1_j35exxw wrote

Going back to school might do you some good.


Pseudonymico t1_j35gr7p wrote

Argumentum ad latinum ≠ argumentum ad verecundiam


mdjank t1_j35n8pt wrote

Which begs the question; why do you think appealing to the needs of the downtrodden and infirmed is a valid argument for not deleting your social media?

Or maybe you're confusing reference to a specific field of mathematics as an appeal to authority?