I copied these quotes, not to disagree with you, but for the example it provides in the context of what Bambi has presented here.
For some people this story has been frontline in their news feeds. Why? Because the algorithms are customized for that reader/viewer who clicks on topics related to shootings, crime, guns, gun control, etc. For those who might not have that clicking/consumption habit, the Baltimore event might not even make their news feed, or is at the very bottom in small text.
"The narrative" is what the AI built into algorithms thinks you want. "The narrative" is different for each of us because of how our viewing/clicking/consumption habits drive the algorithms. "The narrative" as AI has developed for me is different than it is for you, or anyone else.
I appreciate
@Bambistew posting this up. Not because I want Hunt Talk littered with threads about mass shootings, rather because it shows how algorithms have formed everyone's view of the world by what the algorithm feeds/doesn't feed us. The algorithms, which are based on our behavior, have built sophisticated profiles around everyone of us and uses that AI to determine what should/shouldn't be news; in other words, to form "the narrative" we see.
If that level of influence in the information library of citizens' doesn't put a scare in everyone across the entire political spectrum, then I suspect I've got myself out in the weeds.
Not being led around the information world by an algorithm bull ring in my nose is why I subscribe to a lot of information sources to help form "the narrative" as influenced by me and not AI. I'd rather pay for information than let an algorithm decide what I should/shouldn't be informed about. It costs money, but it is worth having choices to read/consume what I want and not what a computer thinks I should.
I've come to realize how less and less of America does that. I bring the topic up a lot when issues arise that can divide people who otherwise have a lot in common. It would be interesting to know how many Hunt Talkers subscribe to news/information that is behind a paywall. I pay around $100 per month, with the sources being independent outlets and some equally to the left/right on the spectrum.
Most people I talk to just rely on whatever their newsfeed gives them. I get it; it's cheap, actually, it's free, other than the payment made via your personal information and viewing habits. In the process, the AI forms a narrative that they see in their world or what they see as the narrative of others.
For you to say that "it didn't really pick up much coverage on the usual nation media outlets" is a function of what those national media outlets think you want to see/read, based on the profile that has been built around you by the many algorithms employed.
It's not right or wrong for you to state what you did. Merely a reflection of what you are getting served by those media sources. A reflection that we all get served whatever the algorithms think we want. A soft (or maybe not so soft and just well-hidden) form of censorship.
As someone who produces content that is distributed across algorithm-controlled platforms, the last six years have been a study in how digital platforms use algorithms. The conclusions of my interest in the topic being more troublesome each day.
It is that research that causes me to put great emphasis a non-algorithmic social media platform like Hunt Talk. This platform will never have an algorithm. You can take that to the bank. You decide what you want to read here, what you want to consume, not influenced by a form of AI.
Carry on.... Just keep it to the notion of what does/doesn't end up in your feeds and why that is.
