People don't choose to funnel wealth to billionaires like a donation. A lot of it comes through low wages, rent and asset ownership. You can't donate money you were never paid.
We have a different tool for the billionaires to support. It's called taxes and this is what they really really hate.
> But very few people actually want world peace or a child in the third world getting a meal, as opposed to say, another can of coke or to stay home and get Doordash.
Buying a coke doesn't mean someone prefers it to a feeding a child. It means the coke is on the shelf for 2€ and world peace isn't.
> Agreed. It's par for the course and not necessarily evil. But worth being aware of the hypocrisy of deciding what "right" is, for others.
Alright we agree on laws, now every law decides for others. So the question isn't whether someone decides, it's who. A parliament can be voted out. A lobbyist or an algorithm team can't.
> Are you equating algorithms to fraud? That doesn't seem quite right.
The Margin Call point was about the film you linked.
Besides that: the proper term for what algorithms do is "engagement design". Which is more like a slot machine: built to exploit weaknesses people don't fully see in themselves.
There are even laws regulating it based upon scientific research See Article 25 of the Digital Services Act of the EU: https://www.eu-digital-services-act.com/Digital_Services_Act...