CIRCLE WITH A DOT

RE: https://fediscience.org/@oatp/116438875358622213"Maximal transparency is almost certainly not ethically desirable."Desirable 'for whom'?For platforms facing regulatory scrutiny, opacity is a feature. For users discriminated against by biased recommendation engines, transparency is survival. For communities targeted by algorithmic manipulation, openness is a civil liberty.This paper usefully breaks transparency into dimensions and degrees—providing the "choice points" for an ethics of algorithmic openness. But let us be clear: the stakeholders who need transparency most are rarely the ones invited to design these systems.Our job as advocates for privacy, free software, and civil liberties is not to settle for the "ethically optimal" comfort zone of the powerful. It is to push the needle toward the maximum and let the burden of justification fall on those who demand secrecy.Let us use it to demand more.#DigitalJustice #AlgorithmicBias #PrivacyRights #OpenScience #AlgorithmicGovernance #DigitalDemocracy #InfoSec #TechPolicy

Social media as presented by large corporations like Facebook and TikTok is harmful for everyone, not just children. Adding age restrictions will just mean young adults are not prepared for the real world, and will amplify later harm. Not only that, but technical measures are both ineffective and invasive. Independent and community-driven social media has shown that online interactions can be less addictive and more positive for everyone when profit isn't a motive and creating a community of positivity and growth is. I believe that dark patterns and advertising should be regulated for everyone, not just children, to create the best possible outcome for society. Age restriction, censoring "harmful" content and so on is both harmful to human rights and ineffective in the face of profit motives that incentivise harm and emotional manipulation.