4 ms·

> how are these any different than the standard appeal to emotion arguments that groups make in good faith? That's what's so fascinating about this. I don't se

by eric_h 8y ago

> how are these any different than the standard appeal to emotion arguments that groups make in good faith? That's what's so fascinating about this. I don't see a reasonable way to prevent it from happening. The tools optimized for extracting money from people are also apparently pretty good at sowing discord. > curious to know if you believe the power to disseminate info should be regulated by the govt. The term "pirate radio" is a thing. The internet democratized the power to disseminate information without permission or consequence (with some exceptions, obviously), and I think that's a good thing. Honestly at this point the only reasonable solution I can come up with is a "one weird trick" ad campaign that directs people to a magically effective MOOC on critical thinking.

roywiggins 8y ago
The internet was not quite so bad before content recommendation engines. It was very much a "pull" experience, other than banner ads for porn and malware. Now, Google and Facebook can specialize their content directly to you and your interests. Watch a slightly out of mainstream video? Maybe you would like this one that's further out there. And the more you click, the more YouTube thinks it knows you, and it can keep feeding you worse stuff. It's not that it's being malicious exactly, but it's got an ability to push you that Web 1.0 just didn't have. It used to be that you would go down a link rabbit hole and maybe find some really awful stuff, but the next day the only thing that remembers it is your own browser. Nobody comes along and starts emailing you about it.
- eric_h 8y ago
  > The internet was not quite so bad before content recommendation engines. It was very much a "pull" experience, other than banner ads for porn and malware. Very true, and because of that the depth of the internet was not available to the uninitiated. The "push" of recommendation engines opened up a world of possibilities for the denizens of the internet who didn't know how to find new things that would interest them beyond typing the name of a site into a url bar. It also opened up a world of possibilities for monetization, and here we are.

by eric_h 8y ago

roywiggins 8y ago

The internet was not quite so bad before content recommendation engines. It was very much a "pull" experience, other than banner ads for porn and malware. Now, Google and Facebook can specialize their content directly to you and your interests. Watch a slightly out of mainstream video? Maybe you would like this one that's further out there. And the more you click, the more YouTube thinks it knows you, and it can keep feeding you worse stuff. It's not that it's being malicious exactly, but it's got an ability to push you that Web 1.0 just didn't have. It used to be that you would go down a link rabbit hole and maybe find some really awful stuff, but the next day the only thing that remembers it is your own browser. Nobody comes along and starts emailing you about it.

eric_h 8y ago
> The internet was not quite so bad before content recommendation engines. It was very much a "pull" experience, other than banner ads for porn and malware. Very true, and because of that the depth of the internet was not available to the uninitiated. The "push" of recommendation engines opened up a world of possibilities for the denizens of the internet who didn't know how to find new things that would interest them beyond typing the name of a site into a url bar. It also opened up a world of possibilities for monetization, and here we are.