It's no secret that Twitter, like any other social media platform, is driven by user engagement and ad revenues. The more time we spend on the platform, the more valuable it becomes for them. With this new open-source algorithm, they're essentially crowdsourcing improvements to their system to better serve us the content we crave.
this move could be seen as a strategic PR play to boost their public image amidst the growing concerns around algorithmic bias and lack of transparency. By inviting the community to collaborate and address these issues, they're not only shifting some of the responsibility onto the users but also deflecting potential criticism.
Yes, to an adult, it's a choice because he/she knows the difference. But to a kid, it that a choice by himself/herself or by his/her parents, or by the ideology group he/she is in? To some extent, we chose a kind of education to be mind washed.
Sure, so it's the same for the kids. We never expect a 7-yrs old mature enough to make such judgement. But the choice is still there with their parents. Does that choice exist for these folks in Xinjiang Uyghur regions? Is it free to join/leave or is it forced?
Folks in Xinjiang are free to leave if they choose to be "educated". By the way, do you really think you got to choose the education you want? Can't education transform your mind before you can make such choice? Ever read "Educated"? Do you know how much effort there is to realize that there is alternative choices? Do you remember reading anything that says good things about communism or socialism? Why is it always portrayed badly here? Is it really that bad or someone for some purposes makes it look totally bad?
There's some subtleties here. The "camp" is not targeted to all Muslim in Xinjiang. It's mostly targeted towards Uyghurs, and most Uyghurs is Muslim. Uyghurs is considered a minority in China. There are a tiny group of Uyghurs people that are considered terrorists or separationists. So the entire Uyghurs population in Xinjiang gets "educated". Why? I think it's fallacy of thinking. Suppose you know that of all the crimes committed, a large percent is by people of color x, then what's the chance of a person of color x commit a crime? Most people will think the chance is also very high. It's a incorrect inference. People of color x may have a very large population and if you apply Bayesian rules the chance would be very low. Now let's get back the Uyghurs case. For most Chinese outside Xinjiang, what they see is that most terrorism in China is carried out by Uyghurs. So they think that Uyghurs are terrorist and needs to be educated. While in fact I believe most Uyghurs are peaceful.
The sad thing is that this thinking fallacy happens everywhere in the past and now. And it's really hard to see it as an insider.
How about Guantanamo? Is that a concentration camp? And what about those border facilities detaining immigrants? What's happening inside there? Why eliminating terrorism justifies bombarding a country most of innocent civilians?
Our views are always biased by what we think is right. However there's no absolute right or wrong, only stories planted in our minds.
All those things you mentioned are a) bad and b) off topic. I suggest you create a new post to discuss those.
The right vs wrong question seems straightforward. If the people in these concentration camps are suffering, then it is wrong. If they are unable to speak about whether they are suffering, then that is also wrong.
It's only a "story planted in [your] mind" until it happens to you.
Let's talk about the current topic. I agree that if people are suffering, then it's probably wrong (I say "probably" because some people need to endure "suffering" to improve the overall happiness of other people. Think about Psychiatric hospital). But our knowledge of the suffering is from media, and media can present biased view for whatever reason. And we decide to believe in that media because we share some value with it. So seeing this news from BBC and immediately draws conclusion seems quite rash to me. The story between Uyghurs and Han Chinese is a complicated one. It dates back thousands of years. And there's human thinking fallacy involved here (I mentioned it in another reply).
Based on the footage, and even in spite of the agenda made clear from the interviewer's line of questions, it seems difficult to deny many aspects of the BBC reporting. These institutions do exist, and are targeted at the Uyghur minority. My current internal bias suggests that enrollees at these institutions would be punished for expressing anything but positivity regarding their situation. When one group of humans has power over another, history and even academic exercises [1] suggest that things get ugly.
Much of the western world is influenced by Kantian ethics [2], of which a central tenant is that the end (potentially greater societal stability, in this case) is not justified by the means. This system of thought does not seem to hold much sway by the CCP, and I believe many disagreements can be traced back to this point.
I totally agree with you on this. All the disagreements comes from ideology. And the imbalance of power causes the abuse of power. The CCP uses its monopoly to maintain its control over the country. But why end is not justified by the means? How would Kant solve the trolley problem? If CCP's forcing "education" is wrong, what about forcing the Kantian ethics on CCP? Who actually is abusing power?
I don't think anyone is forcing Kantian ethics on the CCP. If they are, it's not working very well. :)
But I'm glad we can trace some disagreements regarding whether specific actions are ethical back to differing ideologies. If we can abstract some of these ideas it should be easier to have conversations that are a bit removed from emotional factors.
Although I don't support the existence of a detention camp controlled by any nation, the detention camps meant for terrorists are at way higher moral grounds, than someone adhering to a particular ideology.
Yes, Obama administration was working to bring down its operation. But after the arrival of Trump in the office, he has vouched to bring it back it in significance during its golden 2002-7 era. There are around 40 detainees there now.[1]
this move could be seen as a strategic PR play to boost their public image amidst the growing concerns around algorithmic bias and lack of transparency. By inviting the community to collaborate and address these issues, they're not only shifting some of the responsibility onto the users but also deflecting potential criticism.