[governance] Wikileaks - ISOC

[Carlos A. Afonso]

Sorry, Katitza, it does not explain it. It is trending massively by 
velocity and volume. It is clear there is more than an algorithm 
intervening.

--c.a.

On 12/09/2010 05:57 PM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote:
> Hi
>
> Twitter is not blocking. They change they algorithm many time ago. A
> good tech and data analysis explanation is available here:
>
> #WikiLeaks&  Twitter Trending Topics: Manual Interference or Algorithms
> as Usual?
> http://opennet.net/blog/2010/12/wikileaks-twitter-trending-topics-manual-interference-or-algorithms-usual
>
> "the problem with claiming that Twitter is blacklisting any particular
> term ultimately comes down to a likely misunderstanding of the mechanics
> behind trending terms. Volume alone does not dictate what is trending -
> if that were the case, barring any stop-word list, we would see terms
> like “lol” and “Bieber” constantly trending, and, ultimately, the lack
> of churn in trending topics would make them a useless feature on the
> site. For this reason, the likely major component is the velocity of
> volume rather than volume itself (the algorithm itself is not publicly
> known)."
>
> ".... perhaps the Wikileaks story should have been trending, and
> perhaps the algorithm is due for some form of an overhaul to balance the
> needs of Twitter the company and Twitter the communications platform.
> The situation, then, is not whether or not Wikileaks is being
> discriminated against, but whether or not we value that algorithmic
> discrimination as users."
>
>
>
> On Thu, 9 Dec 2010 16:00:05 +0800, Jeremy Malcolm<jeremy at ciroap.org>
> wrote:
>> On 09/12/2010, at 2:53 PM, Ian Peter wrote:
>>
>> So far we have seen everydns, mastercard, amazon and paypal cave in to
>> political pressure, although there is no legal action against
>> wikileaks, let alone a successful one. On the other hand, ISOC (and
>> presumably PIR) and Facebook of all bedfellows have stood firmly on
>> the side of a free Internet.
>>
>> and Twitter.
>>
>> I think an IGC statement on this issue would be useful!
>>
>> Do we want to say "we support Wikileaks" or do we want to say "we
>> disapprove of the (lack of) process that has been followed in dealing
>> with Wikileaks, and we think that a set of principles should be
>> democratically developed to guide public and private responses in
>> future similar circumstances"? Whilst I personally support Wikileaks,
>> I think that the latter approach is more within the IGC's area of core
>> competence, and would also distinguish our statement better from those
>> of free speech groups et al.
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>       governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>       http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t