There is always a cat-and-mouse game between (1) makers of ranking algorithms and (2) content providers who profit from high rankings.
That background fact should inform every analysis of algorithms and amplification.
That background fact should inform every analysis of algorithms and amplification.
https://twitter.com/daphnehk/status/1438887003844530180
Sometimes we call that "spam." Sometimes it's "content farms" or "inauthentic behavior." Sometimes it overlaps with clear societal harms, other times it just degrades service quality. But it is always there, and it always shapes the available choices for platforms and regulators.
Will someone *please* write about this for a policy/news reporter audience? There is literally an entire industry of experts who could easily explain it. SEO conferences and publications like searchengineland.com talk about it all the time.
It's also one of the reasons "neutral" or "authentic" or "just chronological" rankings can be such a mess. **Because bad actors are always messing with them.** There is no edenic state of nature to get back to, and there hasn't been since at least 1978. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_o…
For a more detailed discussion (and one in which I contain my irritation slightly better), see the section on "Chronological Order and Design Defaults" here.
knightcolumbia.org/content/amplif…
knightcolumbia.org/content/amplif…
Also @evelyndouek has written on this, and on the undefinable nature of "inauthentic" user behavior. But we need more people, and louder ones. Failing to get this should be embarrassing.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
