<i>&gt; Editorial control and algorithmic control are two different things.</i><p>It&#x27;s also a <i>meaningless</i> distinction.<p>The point of contention is the bias, not whether the bias is imposed by an algorithm or by a human. People would still be complaining if Facebook had tweaked its algorithm to achieve identical outputs instead of employing humans to do it manually.<p>The truth seems to be somewhere in-between -- it was algorithmically generated and then the output was human-modified.<p>In general, I think the response to this post demonstrates the prevalence of magical thinking about computers, even by people who ought to know better. Bias is bias regardless of whether it&#x27;s explicitly programmed behavior, emergent behavior from a carefully trained neural net, or enforced in human processes post-hoc. Distinguishing between these on the basis of where the behavior came from -- rather than whether or not there&#x27;s a bias -- misses the point.<p><i>&gt; I don&#x27;t see any assertion that there&#x27;s a legal problem in the parent.</i><p>The point of my post wasn&#x27;t to contradict the parent post. There certainly are people who do claim it&#x27;s a legal problem.