3 ms·

> “Never before in history have basically 50 mostly men, mostly 20–35, mostly white engineer designer types within 50 miles of where we are right now [Silicon V

> “Never before in history have basically 50 mostly men, mostly 20–35, mostly white engineer designer types within 50 miles of where we are right now [Silicon Valley], had control of what a billion people think and do.” Hey, is this right place to contact those 50 guys? We're having this little problem where society is becoming increasingly polarized and fractured into camps, which are attacking one another with greater and greater ferocity. Like, I know you like money, but could you maybe use your influence to prevent societal collapse and/or nuclear war? Survival is actually in your interest too.

TeMPOraL 8y ago
> We're having this little problem where society is becoming increasingly polarized and fractured into camps, which are attacking one another with greater and greater ferocity. Like, e.g.: “Never before in history have basically 50 mostly men, mostly 20–35, mostly white engineer designer types within 50 miles of where we are right now [Silicon Valley], had control of what a billion people think and do.”? So sure, some people mostly from SV control the company that sort-of makes the OS used on the phones. Phones made by (and having their OS further altered by) companies predominantly in Asia. Sold with extra crap from companies all over the world. All to facilitate dysfunctional behaviours engineered by ad-tech industry that's, again, everywhere from SV to Tel Aviv to Berlin. I'm all for criticizing SV for what it does wrong, but let's not overdo this.
- excalibur 8y ago
  > I'm all for criticizing SV for what it does wrong, but let's not overdo this. I'm actually less interesed in criticism than it may have appeared. I'm far more interested in finding ways to harness the machinery built for generating revenue and refocus it to discourage the type of angry tribalism that's putting us all in danger. Sure, there are parts of it that are highly decentralized and difficult to influence in this way, but there are other parts that are more easily manipulated, eg. the content of a user's news feed. I'm trying to make the argument that it makes sense for Facebook et al to show users content that's less divisive even if it means less profit in the short term, as it helps to ensure that there will still be people around to use their platforms in 10 years.
  - TeMPOraL 8y ago
    I'm sorry, I misread your comment as "how about you do X" kind of criticism. Now I see the point you were trying to make; it's interesting to think about, but I fear very hard to implement. Social media are pretty much a direct pipe to Moloch Himself[0]. The content that causes problems is made by a countless number of people, each deciding to get a little more for themselves by screwing up other people just a tiny bit ("just so little, it couldn't really hurt"). > I'm trying to make the argument that it makes sense for Facebook et al to show users content that's less divisive even if it means less profit in the short term, as it helps to ensure that there will still be people around to use their platforms in 10 years. I was going to write a long comment about how the divisive content is not Facebook's fault and they can't control it directly, but I guess all both know that. Facebook's contribution is the detailed mechanics of feeds, filtering, timelines, liking, sharing. They could tweak it a bit without immediately getting accused of censorship or not being a fair platform, but it's hard. But it dawned on me - there's one simple trick to unbreak social media, both Twitter and Facebook. One simple trick that's so obvious, that its absence seems to me very purposeful. The trick is: display content in chronological order. It would immediately make both platforms more useful and less addicting at the same time. (I can already hear the screams, "But this is hard! Think of the scale! Eventual consistency and all!". Well, so now you have a hard technical problem that's actually worth to be solved.) I'm not having much hope, though. If there's one thing proven about humanity it's that companies don't self-regulate themselves out of profits. It's a ratchet, there's no going back without a hard reset. -- [0] - http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/

TeMPOraL 8y ago

> We're having this little problem where society is becoming increasingly polarized and fractured into camps, which are attacking one another with greater and greater ferocity. Like, e.g.: “Never before in history have basically 50 mostly men, mostly 20–35, mostly white engineer designer types within 50 miles of where we are right now [Silicon Valley], had control of what a billion people think and do.”? So sure, some people mostly from SV control the company that sort-of makes the OS used on the phones. Phones made by (and having their OS further altered by) companies predominantly in Asia. Sold with extra crap from companies all over the world. All to facilitate dysfunctional behaviours engineered by ad-tech industry that's, again, everywhere from SV to Tel Aviv to Berlin. I'm all for criticizing SV for what it does wrong, but let's not overdo this.

excalibur 8y ago
> I'm all for criticizing SV for what it does wrong, but let's not overdo this. I'm actually less interesed in criticism than it may have appeared. I'm far more interested in finding ways to harness the machinery built for generating revenue and refocus it to discourage the type of angry tribalism that's putting us all in danger. Sure, there are parts of it that are highly decentralized and difficult to influence in this way, but there are other parts that are more easily manipulated, eg. the content of a user's news feed. I'm trying to make the argument that it makes sense for Facebook et al to show users content that's less divisive even if it means less profit in the short term, as it helps to ensure that there will still be people around to use their platforms in 10 years.
- TeMPOraL 8y ago
  I'm sorry, I misread your comment as "how about you do X" kind of criticism. Now I see the point you were trying to make; it's interesting to think about, but I fear very hard to implement. Social media are pretty much a direct pipe to Moloch Himself[0]. The content that causes problems is made by a countless number of people, each deciding to get a little more for themselves by screwing up other people just a tiny bit ("just so little, it couldn't really hurt"). > I'm trying to make the argument that it makes sense for Facebook et al to show users content that's less divisive even if it means less profit in the short term, as it helps to ensure that there will still be people around to use their platforms in 10 years. I was going to write a long comment about how the divisive content is not Facebook's fault and they can't control it directly, but I guess all both know that. Facebook's contribution is the detailed mechanics of feeds, filtering, timelines, liking, sharing. They could tweak it a bit without immediately getting accused of censorship or not being a fair platform, but it's hard. But it dawned on me - there's one simple trick to unbreak social media, both Twitter and Facebook. One simple trick that's so obvious, that its absence seems to me very purposeful. The trick is: display content in chronological order. It would immediately make both platforms more useful and less addicting at the same time. (I can already hear the screams, "But this is hard! Think of the scale! Eventual consistency and all!". Well, so now you have a hard technical problem that's actually worth to be solved.) I'm not having much hope, though. If there's one thing proven about humanity it's that companies don't self-regulate themselves out of profits. It's a ratchet, there's no going back without a hard reset. -- [0] - http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/