5 ms·

> There needs to be stricter regulations which prohibit apps I was agreeing with you until there. We don't need censorship. Anything you see online is a reflec

> There needs to be stricter regulations which prohibit apps I was agreeing with you until there. We don't need censorship. Anything you see online is a reflection of the attitudes and education of the people using it.

Memosyne 8y ago
Do you have any ideas on how else we could fix these problems? Maybe the problem lies in a lack of education on how to navigate these platforms responsibly?
- Baeocystin 8y ago
  Without commenting further on this specific issue (and not pointing fingers, either. I understand the drive to make things better comes from a good place) But. Take heed from someone who lived in communist China in the 70s/80s- all mechanisms of social control outlive their creators. And censorship is a very, very powerful tool. So be very, very careful in invoking that technique as a good idea. Or, put another way, if there's a wasp buzzing in the room, plugging one's ears to its sound doesn't make it go away. You just no longer know when you're about to get stung. As for how to navigate these platforms responsibly- people have to care about consequences, and social media of the modern form is still too new for society to have come to grips with it. I think it will happen with time, as a mix of cultural and legal adaptations. As to what form that will ultimately take, well... Good question, that.
- werbel 8y ago
  Each phone ping, like, comment, reply, follow is a dopamine shot. You know what else gives people dopamine shot? The next piece of chocolate cake, the cigarette that's always overdue, having the drink after long day of work, finally being able to hit the bong and so on. "Social media" is as much of an addiction on a biological level as drugs. We know that prohibition doesn't work. We should start with helping people find ways to feed their (dopamine) reward system with more meaningful stuff. Help accomplish them small and bigger things, promote real human interaction.
- CookieMon 8y ago
  I'd like to see what happens if psychologists design a social media platform around encouraging positive healthy interactions. I can think of many improvements: * Boosting instead of retweeting can avoid viral outrage, explanation - https://www.codesections.com/blog/mastodon-elevator-pitch/ https://www.codesections.com/blog/mastodon-elevator-pitch/ * Reduce the incentives & rewards for signalling and curating an online identity, e.g. avoid Like buttons and Share'd content. Snapchat shows it's possible for Like-less social media without curated identity to still be popular, despite lacking Like-button dopamine hits, and the vacuum left by viral content and image grooming might¹ be replaced with socializing with your friends and ability to be yourself (¹ see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11828280 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11828280) * Should "goes on your permanent record" always be the platform's default behavior for social interactions? But I'm just a mere coder watching social media make my social circles ill, I wonder what systems real psychologists could come up with and test.
- hycaria 8y ago
  There's nothing to fix imo, you learn how to deal with stuff when dealing with stuff, I see no good in preventing it.
elorant 8y ago
Anything that's addressed to underage people needs regulation. We used to say that on the Internet the market regulates itself but obviously we're past that point long ago. Now it's all for profit.
- always_good 8y ago
  "There needs to be regulation" is pretty meaningless though. If anything, you should parcel out some examples of what that would look like instead of +1'ing some abstraction notion of it.
hrktb 8y ago
It's a difficult line to draw though. For instance you have PG ratings, the 13 yo limitation on account creation, 18 yo limitation on binding contracts etc. Flagging what children can see/can do is a necessary part of education, the question is where to draw the line and what is considered damaging enough that it needs to be marked as off limits
- raxxorrax 8y ago
  Luckily, you would have a hard time to mark something as off limits on the net. You can censor the prevalence of something on a specific platform, but users will always be able to link to any content, if they choose to do so. You would also fail to make the internet safe for children. I know, children do stink, but they are probably better at locating information they are looking for than their parents. Only direct parenting can help here because there is no feasible technical solution. So we could draw lines all day and it wouldn't really matter anyway.
- ilammy 8y ago
  > Flagging what children can see/can do is a necessary part of education Yes, but that's a choice ought to be made by the parents. Not the government or some other party. It's the parents who choose how to raise their kids.
  - hrktb 8y ago
    I think in general it's a mix between parents choice and society. If something because a problem for the whole society, parents won't have their say in it. For instance violent content would arguably fall in this bucket. For this specific discussion, the question would be if children exposed to some of the most predatory apps have provably destructive behaviour (for instance if it affects their health such that they are not able to participate in regular social activities, or get depressed and because bring a high cost for the whole society etc.) I'd see censoring at the society level or not depend on the answer to that question.
    - jannyfer 8y ago
TheOtherHobbes 8y ago
It's a reflection of the worst attitudes rather than the best. The claim that socially media don't select and filter is nonsense. Of course they do. They're a huge part of a social feedback loop that selects and reinforces the most average "popular" behaviours, while filtering out more challenging high-effort social edge cases. IMO the edge cases are where all the interesting things happen, so keeping them out of the public eye is a form of censorship itself.

Memosyne 8y ago

Do you have any ideas on how else we could fix these problems? Maybe the problem lies in a lack of education on how to navigate these platforms responsibly?

Baeocystin 8y ago
Without commenting further on this specific issue (and not pointing fingers, either. I understand the drive to make things better comes from a good place) But. Take heed from someone who lived in communist China in the 70s/80s- all mechanisms of social control outlive their creators. And censorship is a very, very powerful tool. So be very, very careful in invoking that technique as a good idea. Or, put another way, if there's a wasp buzzing in the room, plugging one's ears to its sound doesn't make it go away. You just no longer know when you're about to get stung. As for how to navigate these platforms responsibly- people have to care about consequences, and social media of the modern form is still too new for society to have come to grips with it. I think it will happen with time, as a mix of cultural and legal adaptations. As to what form that will ultimately take, well... Good question, that.
werbel 8y ago
Each phone ping, like, comment, reply, follow is a dopamine shot. You know what else gives people dopamine shot? The next piece of chocolate cake, the cigarette that's always overdue, having the drink after long day of work, finally being able to hit the bong and so on. "Social media" is as much of an addiction on a biological level as drugs. We know that prohibition doesn't work. We should start with helping people find ways to feed their (dopamine) reward system with more meaningful stuff. Help accomplish them small and bigger things, promote real human interaction.
CookieMon 8y ago
I'd like to see what happens if psychologists design a social media platform around encouraging positive healthy interactions. I can think of many improvements: * Boosting instead of retweeting can avoid viral outrage, explanation - https://www.codesections.com/blog/mastodon-elevator-pitch/ https://www.codesections.com/blog/mastodon-elevator-pitch/ * Reduce the incentives & rewards for signalling and curating an online identity, e.g. avoid Like buttons and Share'd content. Snapchat shows it's possible for Like-less social media without curated identity to still be popular, despite lacking Like-button dopamine hits, and the vacuum left by viral content and image grooming might¹ be replaced with socializing with your friends and ability to be yourself (¹ see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11828280 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11828280) * Should "goes on your permanent record" always be the platform's default behavior for social interactions? But I'm just a mere coder watching social media make my social circles ill, I wonder what systems real psychologists could come up with and test.
hycaria 8y ago
There's nothing to fix imo, you learn how to deal with stuff when dealing with stuff, I see no good in preventing it.

elorant 8y ago

Anything that's addressed to underage people needs regulation. We used to say that on the Internet the market regulates itself but obviously we're past that point long ago. Now it's all for profit.

always_good 8y ago
"There needs to be regulation" is pretty meaningless though. If anything, you should parcel out some examples of what that would look like instead of +1'ing some abstraction notion of it.

hrktb 8y ago

It's a difficult line to draw though. For instance you have PG ratings, the 13 yo limitation on account creation, 18 yo limitation on binding contracts etc. Flagging what children can see/can do is a necessary part of education, the question is where to draw the line and what is considered damaging enough that it needs to be marked as off limits

raxxorrax 8y ago
Luckily, you would have a hard time to mark something as off limits on the net. You can censor the prevalence of something on a specific platform, but users will always be able to link to any content, if they choose to do so. You would also fail to make the internet safe for children. I know, children do stink, but they are probably better at locating information they are looking for than their parents. Only direct parenting can help here because there is no feasible technical solution. So we could draw lines all day and it wouldn't really matter anyway.
ilammy 8y ago
> Flagging what children can see/can do is a necessary part of education Yes, but that's a choice ought to be made by the parents. Not the government or some other party. It's the parents who choose how to raise their kids.
- hrktb 8y ago
  I think in general it's a mix between parents choice and society. If something because a problem for the whole society, parents won't have their say in it. For instance violent content would arguably fall in this bucket. For this specific discussion, the question would be if children exposed to some of the most predatory apps have provably destructive behaviour (for instance if it affects their health such that they are not able to participate in regular social activities, or get depressed and because bring a high cost for the whole society etc.) I'd see censoring at the society level or not depend on the answer to that question.
  - jannyfer 8y ago

TheOtherHobbes 8y ago

It's a reflection of the worst attitudes rather than the best. The claim that socially media don't select and filter is nonsense. Of course they do. They're a huge part of a social feedback loop that selects and reinforces the most average "popular" behaviours, while filtering out more challenging high-effort social edge cases. IMO the edge cases are where all the interesting things happen, so keeping them out of the public eye is a form of censorship itself.