5 ms·

I think it might be good to consider outrage an externality that we should price in somehow. Not sure how we would do it.

by scanr 9y ago

oldcynic 9y ago
If you're not careful that line of thought leads to something akin to the Chinese social credit system.
- scanr 9y ago
  I think outrage amplification may be a side effect of optimising for engagement. Do you think that changing that would be tantamount to having a social credit system? Or that a social credit system is the only way to price in outrage amplification?
  - oldcynic 9y ago
    > outrage amplification may be a side effect of optimising for engagement I tend to agree, but I suspect that is the last thing the networks would be willing to change, as that is what keeps people there and gets advertising clicks. If it were to reach the point of attracting regulation, what could be regulated? Maximum engagement by the networks, impose some sort of ration, or regulate the users and their twitterings? So I could see it all too easily ending up solving the wrong problem in the wrong way. Honestly off the top of my head, I don't know how I would approach this. Especially when some of the possible approaches would be a conflict of interest for the networks.
    - scanr 9y ago
      Agreed. It’s a tough problem. Do you think we could reliably measure outrage?
      - gt_ 9y ago
        No. But we could compare against our individual cultural alignments and use that. And we can call it whatever we want.
      - AnimalMuppet 9y ago
        Robert Heinlein, in one of his novels (don't remember which one), had a scale of how emotionally loaded individual words were, and regulations that prohibited news organizations from using the more loaded words. Of course, nobody's going to agree which words have what rating on the scale...
  - bobthechef 9y ago
    > I think outrage amplification may be a side effect of optimising for engagement. You don't say. That's very much a reason and was something Facebook and others were being criticized for profiting from during the last presidential race. Engagement means you spend more time on Facebook, which means spending more time looking at ads and supplying Facebook with user data.
coldtea 9y ago
Publicly shun "outraged" people -- instead of their targets.
- nugi 9y ago
  Except many people are rightly outraged. A natural reaction that has been sneakaly exploited for many years.
  - kelukelugames 9y ago
    I have a hard time understanding why anyone thinks outrage is an inappropriate reaction to Harvey Wienstein. Guess people have different thresholds for empathy.
    - coldtea 9y ago
      Outrage is an inappropriate reaction to anything. Public outrage even more so. Rational reasoned handling of a situation is the only treatment that's not worse than the malady. Note how the final statement is empty virtue signaling: "Guess people have different thresholds for empathy" -- in other words, I'm outraged because I have the appropriate amounts of empathy, unlike those that are not participating in mass outrage, who lack it. The idea that someone can have empathy and not fall into fits of outrage is not entertained.
      - kelukelugames 9y ago
        I've never been seriously sexually assaulted or had my classmates shot in front of me. So I don't know how I would respond nor can I tell someone what is the appropriate reaction. I don't think anyone can predict how they would react. It's like Trump saying he's run into the classroom to stop the gunmen. Nobody believes that.
aaron695 9y ago
Give people the opportunity to fine sites for things they disagree with (Pay to show your outrage) IE you donate money every month to a site and get to nullify (ie move it to a charity) some if you disagree with a particular article. It could move more money to publishing and allow the punishing of clickbait articles where it hurts. As compared to the current system based only on a reward model, even hate shares profit companies in a click for hits system. It's hard to say as a model what it would do, but it could be quite positive.

I think it might be good to consider outrage an externality that we should price in somehow. Not sure how we would do it.

by scanr 9y ago

I think it might be good to consider outrage an externality that we should price in somehow. Not sure how we would do it.

oldcynic 9y ago

If you're not careful that line of thought leads to something akin to the Chinese social credit system.

scanr 9y ago
I think outrage amplification may be a side effect of optimising for engagement. Do you think that changing that would be tantamount to having a social credit system? Or that a social credit system is the only way to price in outrage amplification?
- oldcynic 9y ago
  > outrage amplification may be a side effect of optimising for engagement I tend to agree, but I suspect that is the last thing the networks would be willing to change, as that is what keeps people there and gets advertising clicks. If it were to reach the point of attracting regulation, what could be regulated? Maximum engagement by the networks, impose some sort of ration, or regulate the users and their twitterings? So I could see it all too easily ending up solving the wrong problem in the wrong way. Honestly off the top of my head, I don't know how I would approach this. Especially when some of the possible approaches would be a conflict of interest for the networks.
  - scanr 9y ago
    Agreed. It’s a tough problem. Do you think we could reliably measure outrage?
    - gt_ 9y ago
      No. But we could compare against our individual cultural alignments and use that. And we can call it whatever we want.
    - AnimalMuppet 9y ago
      Robert Heinlein, in one of his novels (don't remember which one), had a scale of how emotionally loaded individual words were, and regulations that prohibited news organizations from using the more loaded words. Of course, nobody's going to agree which words have what rating on the scale...
- bobthechef 9y ago
  > I think outrage amplification may be a side effect of optimising for engagement. You don't say. That's very much a reason and was something Facebook and others were being criticized for profiting from during the last presidential race. Engagement means you spend more time on Facebook, which means spending more time looking at ads and supplying Facebook with user data.

coldtea 9y ago

Publicly shun "outraged" people -- instead of their targets.

nugi 9y ago
Except many people are rightly outraged. A natural reaction that has been sneakaly exploited for many years.
- kelukelugames 9y ago
  I have a hard time understanding why anyone thinks outrage is an inappropriate reaction to Harvey Wienstein. Guess people have different thresholds for empathy.
  - coldtea 9y ago
    Outrage is an inappropriate reaction to anything. Public outrage even more so. Rational reasoned handling of a situation is the only treatment that's not worse than the malady. Note how the final statement is empty virtue signaling: "Guess people have different thresholds for empathy" -- in other words, I'm outraged because I have the appropriate amounts of empathy, unlike those that are not participating in mass outrage, who lack it. The idea that someone can have empathy and not fall into fits of outrage is not entertained.
    - kelukelugames 9y ago
      I've never been seriously sexually assaulted or had my classmates shot in front of me. So I don't know how I would respond nor can I tell someone what is the appropriate reaction. I don't think anyone can predict how they would react. It's like Trump saying he's run into the classroom to stop the gunmen. Nobody believes that.

aaron695 9y ago

Give people the opportunity to fine sites for things they disagree with (Pay to show your outrage) IE you donate money every month to a site and get to nullify (ie move it to a charity) some if you disagree with a particular article. It could move more money to publishing and allow the punishing of clickbait articles where it hurts. As compared to the current system based only on a reward model, even hate shares profit companies in a click for hits system. It's hard to say as a model what it would do, but it could be quite positive.