←back to thread

John Carmack's arguments against building a custom XR OS at Meta

(twitter.com)
521 points OlympicMarmoto | 9 comments | 29 Aug 25 16:45 UTC | HN request time: 1.411s | source | bottom
1. cubefox ◴[29 Aug 25 17:50 UTC] No.45067253[source]▶
The Twitter algorithm is open source, unlike the algorithm for Facebook, Instagram, TikTok etc. I'm not aware of any evidence for bias in the algorithm.
replies(1): >>45067306 #
2. thrance ◴[29 Aug 25 17:53 UTC] No.45067306[source]▶
It's not though. The GitHub repo was never updated once. Here's an experiment for you: open X in a new private tab and count political posts, see how many of them are far right. Bias is evident.
replies(2): >>45067354 #>>45067545 #
3. cubefox ◴[29 Aug 25 17:57 UTC] No.45067354[source]▶
> The GitHub repo was never updated once.

Pretty sure that's false: I remember seeing the recent commit that made Grok misbehave.

> Here's an experiment for you: open X in a new private tab and count political posts, see how many of them are far right. Bias is evident.

Go to Bluesky and count far left posts. The result will be similar, because political bubbles form by themselves.

replies(3): >>45067382 #>>45067438 #>>45068847 #
4. actionfromafar ◴[29 Aug 25 18:00 UTC] No.45067382{3}[source]▶
Nazi bubbles form naturally around nazi owners.
5. thrance ◴[29 Aug 25 18:05 UTC] No.45067438{3}[source]▶
https://github.com/twitter/the-algorithm

Not updated in two years.

> Go to Bluesky...

At least people are not fantasizing about "race wars" or discussing the "jewsish question" there. Two subjects I saw multiple times on X's front page.

6. numpad0 ◴[29 Aug 25 18:13 UTC] No.45067545[source]▶
There's been a lot of anecdotal reports circulating that retweets don't work anymore, likes slightly better, quote tweets do best, links should be in replies, etc. They're hiding a lot of quote tweets as "unavailable" and shuffling thread orders as well. Twitter right now is not just biased, but they have been struggling for a long while to disrupt its resilient emergent meritocracy that don't favor Musk.
7. wredcoll ◴[29 Aug 25 20:11 UTC] No.45068847{3}[source]▶
This attempted equivalence is wild. I'm not sure if you're uninformed or malicious, but "far right posts" means posts talking about "the jews taking over" or some other racist drivel and discussing which minority to attack next.

"Far left posts" are like, what, people should have access to healthcare? People should pay more taxes?

replies(1): >>45081770 #
8. cubefox ◴[31 Aug 25 09:22 UTC] No.45081770{4}[source]▶
Recently, anti-Jewish sentiment seems actually more common among the far left.

> "Far left posts" are like, what, people should have access to healthcare? People should pay more taxes?

No, like abolishing the police, open borders, calling the war against Hamas a "genocide", censorship of any statistics on race, IQ and crime, cancelling people for things that were considered completely normal 15 years ago, etc.

replies(1): >>45083945 #
9. wredcoll ◴[31 Aug 25 15:30 UTC] No.45083945{5}[source]▶
Wow, yeah man, referring to an attempt to exterminate a population as a genocide is definitely just as bad as calling for the extermination of minorities. That's definitely the same level of morally wrong.

Like, this is literally my point, "abolishing the police" may not be the most effective way to build a better society, but there's absolutely nothing morally or ethically wrong with saying it. If you don't get this, I'm genuinely not sure how to explain it, but here's a short attempt:

A police force/buildings/cars/employees are an artificial construct created by a series of laws passed by a (in this case) democratic government. Repealing/passing new laws that removes the police system is just a neutral action in the same way that creating them in the first place was.

People say "abolish the police" because they genuinely believe it will help everyone. People do not say "deport brown people" because they think it will help everyone. You get how this is different, right?

Also, lol, you said "cancelling people" like it was a real thing. What happened, did someone have an invitation rescinded because they said something offensive? Wow, yeah, uninviting someone is definitely some kind of awful moral hazard. That person was entitled by his existence to give that speech, dammit!