4 ms·

Social media has become a social health problem and should be treated as such. YouTube still has the annoying auto play next set to on, and in my suggested view

by onyva 8y ago

Social media has become a social health problem and should be treated as such. YouTube still has the annoying auto play next set to on, and in my suggested viewing, I still see tones of shitty click-bait videos, for some reason. They’re creating distraction, not helping to solve it. They’re driven by profit, why would they vaulanterly make they’re products less addictive or vaunarable people? Regadles, “Social Corporate Responsibility” has already proven itself to be a sham.

spuz 8y ago
Yes they are driven by profit but their algorithms are optimised for metrics such as watch time. They are finally realising that someone who literally spends 24 hours per day on their website isn't actually generating profit for them and they are changing their metrics to better align with the actual things that their users care about such as getting enough sleep and being productive.
vertexFarm 8y ago
It's rapidly becoming a problem of nations, too. Democracy isn't designed with such powerful persuasion tools in mind. A democratic system in today's world honestly just hands the keys of state to whoever controls these marketing nukes. Of course it's not nearly as bad now as it'll get later. We're about to be treated to a front-row viewing of just how easy it is to mess up every future election.
- alexashka 8y ago
  This has always been the case. No presidential candidate can win without millions of dollars in campaign 'contributions'. Trump had a smaller budget than Hillary - so if anything, it proves the opposite of what you're claiming. I understand that it's upsetting that the candidate you don't like is running the country - it is not helpful to throw reason out the window and cherry pick data that suit your emotions.
  - vertexFarm 8y ago
    You're presuming a whole lot about my political views. We've seen for a long time that the size of a political campaign in dollar amounts doesn't really correlate with who wins. We're not talking about official campaigns here. We're not talking about Hillary vs. Trump, although I see that you're getting all offended because you mistakenly thought I was slighting your boy. Calm down, this has nothing to do with him. This is about the future. Social media moguls will arguably have immense power to choose which candidates can win or even compete in elections by selectively limiting or pushing coverage and managing incredibly insular social circles of people online. Forget superPACs or whatever. People who control a system this powerful don't need to campaign through the old-timey official political advertising system, they just push their agenda on their own network with no rules whatsoever. And it's not national. It's global. Tons of actors are seeing just how effective it can be, and you better believe that people will be grinding that axe like mad in elections from here on. It's going to be very difficult to even quantify how broad an effect it has. As these algorithms get even more effective than they already are, we're going to essentially see the end of legitimate elections. PAC advertising has absolutely nothing on this new tactic.

by onyva 8y ago

spuz 8y ago

Yes they are driven by profit but their algorithms are optimised for metrics such as watch time. They are finally realising that someone who literally spends 24 hours per day on their website isn't actually generating profit for them and they are changing their metrics to better align with the actual things that their users care about such as getting enough sleep and being productive.

vertexFarm 8y ago

It's rapidly becoming a problem of nations, too. Democracy isn't designed with such powerful persuasion tools in mind. A democratic system in today's world honestly just hands the keys of state to whoever controls these marketing nukes. Of course it's not nearly as bad now as it'll get later. We're about to be treated to a front-row viewing of just how easy it is to mess up every future election.

alexashka 8y ago
This has always been the case. No presidential candidate can win without millions of dollars in campaign 'contributions'. Trump had a smaller budget than Hillary - so if anything, it proves the opposite of what you're claiming. I understand that it's upsetting that the candidate you don't like is running the country - it is not helpful to throw reason out the window and cherry pick data that suit your emotions.
- vertexFarm 8y ago
  You're presuming a whole lot about my political views. We've seen for a long time that the size of a political campaign in dollar amounts doesn't really correlate with who wins. We're not talking about official campaigns here. We're not talking about Hillary vs. Trump, although I see that you're getting all offended because you mistakenly thought I was slighting your boy. Calm down, this has nothing to do with him. This is about the future. Social media moguls will arguably have immense power to choose which candidates can win or even compete in elections by selectively limiting or pushing coverage and managing incredibly insular social circles of people online. Forget superPACs or whatever. People who control a system this powerful don't need to campaign through the old-timey official political advertising system, they just push their agenda on their own network with no rules whatsoever. And it's not national. It's global. Tons of actors are seeing just how effective it can be, and you better believe that people will be grinding that axe like mad in elections from here on. It's going to be very difficult to even quantify how broad an effect it has. As these algorithms get even more effective than they already are, we're going to essentially see the end of legitimate elections. PAC advertising has absolutely nothing on this new tactic.