3 ms·

not really. I migth have dozen of friends who did read, and did figure out it was BS. But the systems optimize for positive interactions (which generates eyeba

by ggg2 7y ago

not really. I migth have dozen of friends who did read, and did figure out it was BS. But the systems optimize for positive interactions (which generates eyeballs/pageview/ad impressions). So even if a dozen friends dismissed something, correctly, that one dumb Shitposter will get the word accross and the sytem will benefit the thumbs up with a zero effort propagation (one click) versus the critic (time to sit down, write an argument, work to have that thumbsuped... or o HN: create an account years in the past, acumulates karma just so you can downvote things that are actually wrong). the incentives are the problem (advertising) not presence of wrong content amidst good content.

WorldMaker 7y ago
Relatedly, a big problem with Twitter/FB was showing the friend dismissed content as well as the verified content, because dismissed content eyeballs is still eyeballs on content, then making it sometimes hard to tell which was which. A friend might retweet on Twitter content they were dismissive about, but that retweet would sometimes accidentally legitimize that content by removing the dismissive context (spreading it away in readers' timelines). Similar with FB showing you stuff friends react to or comment on; their reactions might be Anger and their comments critical, but that context also is still partly lost if you weren't looking for it, and sometimes intentionally whitewashed ("x friends reacted to this" instead of "10 friends hate this, but one kind of liked it"), in the maelstrom of the FB timeline algorithm. (Obviously the worst case on FB up until recently was how easy it was for people to whitewash paid ads by resharing them, losing the context of who paid to promote that content in the first place.)
load-of-shit 7y ago
There's some serious congnitive dissonance you're broadcasting. You say dozens of friends figure it out, but one idiot pushes it forward. Sounds like most people think rationally. The idiots are a small minority, however loud. When it comes time to tally up, the votes won't favor the one idiot. The court of public opinion won't swing in favor of lone wolves. It never has. The lowest common denominator is precisely that. Common. It's not the crackpot opinion. The megaphone of a crackpot doesn't sway opinion. Public opinion dilutes to neutral apathy. It rarely charges up to high polarity, and only when there are solid, verifiable facts in play. If a large base is charged up, they have a core set of real values. It's not a base founded on fiction. They haven't been swindled. It's dismissive to believe that.

by ggg2 7y ago

WorldMaker 7y ago

Relatedly, a big problem with Twitter/FB was showing the friend dismissed content as well as the verified content, because dismissed content eyeballs is still eyeballs on content, then making it sometimes hard to tell which was which. A friend might retweet on Twitter content they were dismissive about, but that retweet would sometimes accidentally legitimize that content by removing the dismissive context (spreading it away in readers' timelines). Similar with FB showing you stuff friends react to or comment on; their reactions might be Anger and their comments critical, but that context also is still partly lost if you weren't looking for it, and sometimes intentionally whitewashed ("x friends reacted to this" instead of "10 friends hate this, but one kind of liked it"), in the maelstrom of the FB timeline algorithm. (Obviously the worst case on FB up until recently was how easy it was for people to whitewash paid ads by resharing them, losing the context of who paid to promote that content in the first place.)

load-of-shit 7y ago

There's some serious congnitive dissonance you're broadcasting. You say dozens of friends figure it out, but one idiot pushes it forward. Sounds like most people think rationally. The idiots are a small minority, however loud. When it comes time to tally up, the votes won't favor the one idiot. The court of public opinion won't swing in favor of lone wolves. It never has. The lowest common denominator is precisely that. Common. It's not the crackpot opinion. The megaphone of a crackpot doesn't sway opinion. Public opinion dilutes to neutral apathy. It rarely charges up to high polarity, and only when there are solid, verifiable facts in play. If a large base is charged up, they have a core set of real values. It's not a base founded on fiction. They haven't been swindled. It's dismissive to believe that.