I already deleted all my reviews from Google Maps. Spent all that money and effort installing a wheelchair elevator in a listed building, then when updating the info to say basically, "it's still not exactly wheelchair-friendly as a 120 year old building, but there is a wheelchair elevator and a HC toilet now", Google algorithmically accused me of lying.
They fear tiktok is outcompeting them with even more aggressive attention hijacking, I guess, so they can't resist showing up something "This wasn't what you were looking at but can I get you to click it?"
Apropos social media and age, I have some relatives with the last name of Aam. (Åm or Aam is an old farm in the Volda area of Sunnmøre, Norway).
If you try searching them in Facebook, you get a message telling you your search has been stopped and you should seek help you sicko, searching for... "Age abuse material" maybe? I don't know why it freaks out on those three letters, but it does.
This was in the news a year ago, and they still haven't changed it. Go and try if you want.
So allow me to doubt that the implementation is going to be smooth. For you maybe. If you instead end up in some algorithmic Kafka nightmare, don't count on your social media friends to notice.
You have to see if it's in a corporation's interest for false positives or false negatives. For you and AAM, it costs Facebook almost nothing for a false positive on "age abuse material" so I would expect them to continue to flag your family name as a false positive.
With snap and others, I would expect them to focus on reducing false negatives and give the benefit of the doubt to the kid who is under 16. Worst case, you say "Mea Culpa" and update your algorithm accordingly to any cases that you missed but the state has found.
And how can you trust the trust? We also have plenty of trusts which are questionably aligned with their makers last wills, among them the Nobel peace prize (Nobel didn't just want the prize to go to anyone working for any kind of advancement of peace. He had a very particular instrument for peace in mind, namely peace conferences, which I don't think any laureate has arranged for fifty years.)
I think we have too many trusts already. Let the living decide what's important in life, not the dead.
That's why I said "mitigate" rather than "completely solve." Incentives are aligned better with two entities who check each other and earn ongoing fees, instead of giving a lump sum to a single entity.
And the Nobels might not be awarded exactly as originally intended, but they are still awarded every year. Nobody has swiped the funds for executive bonuses, as the commenter above suggested.
It's almost an artifact of PCA. You'll find "important" principal components everywhere you look. It takes real effort to construct a dataset where you don't. That doesn't mean though, for instance, that throwing away the less important principal components of an image is the best way to compress an image.
"We can buy a cottage in the Isle of Wight, if it's not too dear", sang the Beatles, and that was a thing retirees did when they sang it. Those retirees would have been born in 1890-1910, and be perfectly aware of what life was like without running water and electricity (or the old age pension which made buying a cottage in the Isle of Wight an option!), yet they still obviously saw something in the "cottagecore" life.
I'm thinking also of one set of great-great grandparents. He was from a very poor farming family, who had decided to look for work in the city instead of emigrating to the US. She was from a considerably wealthier farming family (which owned their own farm, his didn't), and also had decided to move to the city, probably more out of a desire to see the world (and the wonders of fin de siecle city life) than necessity. They did well for themselves in the city, but in their old age they moved to a rural cottage near the farm she grew up on. (I think actually she inherited the land, and considerably more, but that they sold off the rest).
I think that with money, cottage core can be a desirable life. A big part of the reason life was hard for life-on-the-prairie people was that they had debts, and need for a good deal of things they couldn't grow themselves. With a little money, like both my great-great grandparents and the stereotypical Beatles retirees had, cottage life can be fine.
I don't think the Beatles song really tells us much about 'cottagecore' or rural life in the 1800s.
Retirees in the 1960s were not aspiring to a rural way of life, or giving up plumbing or electricity. They were just buying a small house suitable for two older people to live in together.
This was a middle class goal with very little overlap to today's 'cottagecore' other than the word 'cottage'.
Well, yes if you're a retiree then thing are always a bit different, but the cottagecore lifestyle is about raising a family, not retiring. Ironically, the Isle of Wight is still a great example. It's a lovely place for a holiday, and a great place to retire. I spent a weekend there a few weeks ago and had a great time. Lovely landscape, beaches with dinosaur footprints and loads of fossils, great pubs. I recommend it! But it's really not a good place for a working age family. I'd never choose to live there.
There's a reason it's among the most deprived areas in England. It's badly isolated, with a crazily-expensive ferry the only connection to the mainland. The jobs are working in tourism, agriculture, or at the prison. Housing is totally unaffordable, because of all the second-homeowners, holiday cottages and – yes – retirees. The story is the same in many tourism areas.
Cottage core is an aspirational Marie Antoinette-ism. Devotees get to pretend they're living the authentic peasant life while checking their stock portfolios.
Don’t they buy cottages anymore? In Sweden that is still extremely popular. Almost everyone who can afford one owns one, to my foreign eyes amusement as to me that’s just finding something to work on every summer. There’s a satirical reference to this in the series “Welcome to Sweden”, which makes fun of lots of stereotypical Swedish behavior.
Same here in Finland, and it just makes no sense to me at all. So often I will talk with someone who lives in a city here, and hear them complain about how brutally expensive it is, how nobody makes enough money to save anything, and a few sentences later they're telling me about how annoyed they are that they have to drive 6 hours every weekend to their $30,000 hut in the middle of nowhere to patch up the leaking roof or stuff more dried moss between the logs, and that they should have sprung for the $50,000 one that's only 90 minutes away. By car. In a country where gas is regularly over $10 a gallon. When they could get to work just fine on the bus.
We'll stick with our quiet little apartment and our free time and our growing savings accounts, thank you very much.
Same in Norway. These days it's often second homes in the mountain, better equipped than many poor people's homes, and in a "cottage suburb" where you can even pay people to do the maintenance - but that does get some derision from the old-style cottage fans. Old-style cottages with limited amenities are still popular, though in these days of solar panels even mountain cottages typically have at least electricity, and a vacuum toilet rather than an outhouse.
I'm 30 and I remember when this was still a thing in Russia. As soon as Communism crumbled and the new economy could provide enough food, literally everyone abandoned the dacha and the potatoes.
Great re-iteration of my point :) Written for anti-trust regulators, intentionally misusing the words they'd use, but with very different meaning. Hopefully professionals will see through their thin veil.
I had some contact with an evangelical congregation many years ago, and I remember a woman saying something like, "Everyone has their different spiritual gifts, mine is just that I know if a message is from God." That creeped me out, obviously. She was basically claiming exclusive veto on anything anyone might say.
But people who claim similar authority in political matters, the experts on expertise, or those who have the "spiritual gift" (intellectual gift, maybe?) of telling with certainty if a message is foreign propaganda, somehow don't set of as many alarm bells.
The New Testament instructs the elders of a church to evaluate the messages brought by people who share a message or claim to prophesy. We're also instructed to "test the spirits" to see if they are from God. And to search the Scriptures in order to see if what people say is consistent with the teaching that has been given from God.
If you don't believe in God, divine revelation, and God speaking to people in their lives, then I'm not sure why you'd find her assertion creepy, it might make more sense to just find her and the entire Christian belief system false and mostly irrelevant.
At any rate, I doubt she was claiming spiritual authority over everyone else as you put it, more like saying God gave her a spiritual spidey sense or BS meter to help her personally and to help caution her local congregation or the people in her life.
It's a le legitimate claim within Christian teaching but I can't speak to her use of the gift. People's use of spiritual gifts isn't autonomous, but prophecy, preaching, administration, hospitality, discernment, and so on should be regulated within the Church body by the oversight of other Christians.
Surely in these situations, the fact-checked information is more knowable than God. The fact checker can provide other sources that may support their position. The woman with a hotline to God cannot possibly provide any proof of her claims.
Comparing a belief in spiritualism to a fact checker thinking they've found misinformation is apples and oranges in terms of falsifiability.
> The fact checker can provide other sources that may support their position.
Sure, and that woman could surely have come up with some bible verses or something. But would they even bother, if we accept them as an authority?
There weren't exactly many sources to support the claim that a certain laptop "had all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation"
The point isn't that the truth is unknowable, but that we should be deeply skeptical of people who claim to be truth experts. Of course real experts exist, but the more generic a person claims their expertise to be, and the more political the topic (in the sense that people have genuine conflicts of interest over it, that what benefits you may not benefit me), the less we should trust them.
At least Divine Authority Lady probably didn't have much opportunity to benefit at my expense, the same can't be said for all media experts.
> Sure, and that woman could surely have come up with some bible verses or something. But would they even bother, if we accept them as an authority?
In a modern, secular society, we do not take "the bible" as a logical reason for something. However, we do accept statements of things that are verifiable like that an event occurred, was observed by many people besides the one making the claim, and possibly even recorded by multiple sources.
> There weren't exactly many sources to support the claim that a certain laptop "had all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation"
There also weren't many sources to support the chain of custody for said laptop. Given the people involved, the implications and the timing, it is right to be skeptical of such a fantastical story.
> The point isn't that the truth is unknowable, but that we should be deeply skeptical of people who claim to be truth experts
Assumedly the fact checker is not researching every fact check per post, but is referencing some internal document stating what the organization considers "fact". This could have surely been created through discussions and research with experts.
Is your solution that we should never attempt to fact check anything?
> At least Divine Authority Lady probably didn't have much opportunity to benefit at my expense
I guarantee there is a lucrative spot for someone claiming to have secret knowledge from God. And even less fear of being executed as an apostate than in the past. However, being a "Fact Checker" now means you are scrutinized by the US federal government and may be denied entry or citizenship. The fact checker took a bigger risk and had a worse outcome than Divine Authority Lady.
In the context this woman was, they DO take bible verses as justifications. Not "logical reason", for heaven's sake. Expressing it that way suggests you're stubbornly refusing to think about contexts other than your preferred one, how others see the world. That seems to happen a lot with techies online.
I'm not asking you to accept how someone else sees the world as truth, I'm asking you to understand that it's how they see the world. Seems pretty important to understand the impact of a policy like trying to elevate professional institutional fact checkers in the media.
> Given the people involved, the implications and the timing, it is right to be skeptical of such a fantastical story.
That is not the question. The question is, was "citing" 60 anonymous authorities who claim to have evidence you're not allowed to see, going to convince anyone who wasn't already? If that was the attempt, I'd say it's a symptom of the usual "online techie autism" - people with bad theories of mind, bad ability to understand other's people thinking, who think they've got everything that matters worked out (those other people are just stupid anyway, don't you know).
You should ask, are the sort of institutional fact checkers we have now a useful institution? Or maybe more, the ones we used to have a few years ago. Even most of them have given up after the fiasco of Trump's second election.
> I guarantee there is a lucrative spot for someone claiming to have secret knowledge from God.
I was talking about specific people. You don't know them better than me.
> However, being a "Fact Checker" now means you are scrutinized by the US federal government and may be denied entry or citizenship. The fact checker took a bigger risk and had a worse outcome than Divine Authority Lady.
Ridiculous. That's like saying right-wing grifters like, what's her name, Candace Owens, or the one who recently jumped ship, Marjorie Taylor Greene, are brave and principled for breaking with their side's orthodoxy. They're not. They're just trying to be one step ahead of events, one hour ahead of their time (no more!) and are terribly bad at it.
Your poor harassed institutional fact checkers may deserve pity for the outcome, but they are not brave, they just bet on the wrong horse, and they may well swing back in power and authority soon anyway (though not for long, because they're part of the problem they imagine themselves the solution to).
