Once again, we have a very real problem, but presented from people who don't understand either the computational or business realities of these companies.

&gt; MPs also questioned how useful automated algorithms were for identifying abusive content.

&gt; ...

&gt; For example, out of two million pieces of offensive content, Facebook's algorithms could only correctly identify 15% as in breach of the site's rules.

&gt; ...

&gt;Labour MP Karen Buck said algorithms might not identify messages such as, "you're going to get what Jo Cox got" as hostile. She was referring to the MP Jo Cox who was murdered in June 2016.

Magic. They want actual magic solutions.

I'd say the only useful and meaningful part of the article is this:
&gt; Ms Cherry argued it was in fact part of a pattern in which Twitter only reviewed its decisions when pressed by people in public life.

That right there. Companies only change their platforms when a big stink is made publicly because then it risks affecting their bottom line. That is literally the only reasonable takeaway from the article.

It gets worse if you read the linked article [Facebook, Twitter, and Youtube told off by MPs](https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-48037482).

&gt; He was asked whether YouTube's algorithms promoted far-right content, even to users who did not want to see it.
&gt;
&gt;"Recommended videos is a useful feature if you are looking for music but the challenge for speech is that it is a different dynamic. We are working to promote authoritative content and make sure controversial and offensive content has less visibility," he said.
&gt;
&gt;He was pressed on why the algorithms were not changed.

'Cause programmers aren't directly writing these algorithms anymore. They've handed it off to AI to maximize "watch time" or "engagement" or stuff like that.

Was it a reckless use of technology? Sure. Did these companies consider themselves as arbiters of knowledge and misinformation? I doubt it. Can they fix it without scrapping what they have and starting over? Now *that's* the question. At this point in time, I'm learning toward "no".