3 ms·

The biggest benefit of social media over forums or email lists is ML-based ranking. You save a ton of time reading the most crucial, while skipping the rest. T

The biggest benefit of social media over forums or email lists is ML-based ranking. You save a ton of time reading the most crucial, while skipping the rest. The platforms are addictive not because they're designed to be, but because they pick out the best and most interesting content! FB, YouTube etc represent a revolution about how content is created and consumed. You no longer need to browse through 10s of posts or emails (or videos) to find something you really like. Algorithms do the curation for you. I learned so much by hanging out in FB forums (much more so than any other old-style forum). And my favorite pastime these days is YouTube Red. Don't believe in the scare or the negative hype. Social media and AI curated content aren't going anywhere. They might evolve as required.

taurath 8y ago
> The platforms are addictive not because they're designed to be, but because they pick out the best and most interesting content! The best by the users interests or the best for the advertisers? I think ignoring the personal and societal effects of social media is something you do at your own peril.
- starchild_3001 8y ago
  As a broad response, let's just say not everything is perfect. These systems can be and are abused (by publishers, malicious actors). Yes, let's fix those. But let's not overlook why these things have become popular in the first place (from a utility point of view). Google made the whole web searchable and digestable. Facebook made social & forum content much higher utility than before. YT did the same with billions of mostly-uninteresting videos. Going back to an old style forum & email-list experience is a step backwards. Well, be my guest, do it if you like :) I won't. See Reddit, Hackernews etc regarding how social cues can be used for ranking/curation. Yet, those platforms do a bare minimum (imo not quite enough). E.g. Google Feed is more engaging, interesting, and informative (in my experience).
Applejinx 8y ago
Wow. >The biggest benefit of social media over forums or email lists is ML-based ranking. That's what Jaron Lanier calls 'behavior modification networks' and control of that stuff is intensely valuable to whoever wants to behavior modify, valuable in myriad VERY practical ways. Machine learning? My ass. The machines can learn all they want; application is going to be controlled by management, when it's that profitable. >The platforms are addictive not because they're designed to be Not designed to be, my ass. Next you'll tell me mobile games aren't designed to be addictive? This is a science by now, and we're seeing the results. Like hell they aren't designed to be. You could say (from a certain viewpoint) that it's a breach of fiduciary duty if they are NOT designed to be addictive. >Algorithms do the curation for you Control of that is more valuable than any previous form of advertising or marketing. The social media revolution as you describe it has meant you can define people's experiential bubbles, orthogonally to what their wishes might be. You can expose 'em to whatever you need them to believe in. They don't even experience what you want to exclude. All for a price. This ain't the Singularity. Algorithms give big data to the people who really make decisions on who gets to influence, and you know neither the influencers nor the decision makers. Something like youtube 'Elsa videos' for kids are not an AI deciding kids need more creepy in their lives, there are people trying to manipulate the system and other people who see it happening and go 'heh' and probably make notes and study what happens. The algorithms are just not sophisticated enough to be directive in the way you allude to. It's not going away, which is WHY to attend to the negative side. If you're cynical, you don't have to see it as 'scare' so much as yet another banality of evil. Which we don't casually accept, even though it has been with us since the days of cavemen.

taurath 8y ago

> The platforms are addictive not because they're designed to be, but because they pick out the best and most interesting content! The best by the users interests or the best for the advertisers? I think ignoring the personal and societal effects of social media is something you do at your own peril.

starchild_3001 8y ago
As a broad response, let's just say not everything is perfect. These systems can be and are abused (by publishers, malicious actors). Yes, let's fix those. But let's not overlook why these things have become popular in the first place (from a utility point of view). Google made the whole web searchable and digestable. Facebook made social & forum content much higher utility than before. YT did the same with billions of mostly-uninteresting videos. Going back to an old style forum & email-list experience is a step backwards. Well, be my guest, do it if you like :) I won't. See Reddit, Hackernews etc regarding how social cues can be used for ranking/curation. Yet, those platforms do a bare minimum (imo not quite enough). E.g. Google Feed is more engaging, interesting, and informative (in my experience).

Applejinx 8y ago

Wow. >The biggest benefit of social media over forums or email lists is ML-based ranking. That's what Jaron Lanier calls 'behavior modification networks' and control of that stuff is intensely valuable to whoever wants to behavior modify, valuable in myriad VERY practical ways. Machine learning? My ass. The machines can learn all they want; application is going to be controlled by management, when it's that profitable. >The platforms are addictive not because they're designed to be Not designed to be, my ass. Next you'll tell me mobile games aren't designed to be addictive? This is a science by now, and we're seeing the results. Like hell they aren't designed to be. You could say (from a certain viewpoint) that it's a breach of fiduciary duty if they are NOT designed to be addictive. >Algorithms do the curation for you Control of that is more valuable than any previous form of advertising or marketing. The social media revolution as you describe it has meant you can define people's experiential bubbles, orthogonally to what their wishes might be. You can expose 'em to whatever you need them to believe in. They don't even experience what you want to exclude. All for a price. This ain't the Singularity. Algorithms give big data to the people who really make decisions on who gets to influence, and you know neither the influencers nor the decision makers. Something like youtube 'Elsa videos' for kids are not an AI deciding kids need more creepy in their lives, there are people trying to manipulate the system and other people who see it happening and go 'heh' and probably make notes and study what happens. The algorithms are just not sophisticated enough to be directive in the way you allude to. It's not going away, which is WHY to attend to the negative side. If you're cynical, you don't have to see it as 'scare' so much as yet another banality of evil. Which we don't casually accept, even though it has been with us since the days of cavemen.