I suppose the issue is the private ownership of the algorithm. Lemmy is a way to distribute ownership even though I think each instance is privately owned. It might be worthwhile to create a platform abstracting the data from the algorithm allowing the end user a choice of recommendation algorithm.
There is no money in it. Enclosure of the recommendation algorithm is profitable.
If there are recommendation systems, maybe an open API for requests is required. Thereby a user can choose an algorithm. I would go as far as open sourcing it all.
I agree that the current form puts too much power in the hands of a few.
We should only consume domestic media. Good thing the Bible is domestic media. \s
How is there less risk to Americans on a platform like X(itter) instead of TikTok?
As a maths person, I have scored high on IQ tests for years. There are plenty of topics I am not great at, but IQ tests typically focus maths topics like pattern recognition.
I like the acknowledgement of racism in IQ tests. There is a bias in the test for western maths education. Sadly, the results could be used for eugenics. Many great mathematicians I have met are neurodivergent, LGBTIA+, cis-women or other groups the eugenics crowd want culled.
My current politicical perpspective frames this as enforcement of heirarchy, legitimized "scientifically" by the IQ test. There are plenty of high IQ people, such as those in maths, that do not fit the eugenic vision. The heirarchy becomes self-fulfilling and "natural" by culling the non-comforming people. The "top" of the heirarchy must legitimize their position, so the bottom doesn't resist doing all the work for little personal benefit.
IQ tests measure something. Don't use that measurement to justify heirarchy. Eugenics is bad. A better future, built from the bottom, is possible. All power to all people.