4 ms·

First of all, there's a known, deadly problem of disinformation spreading via WhatsApp forwarding [1], and I'm pretty sure WhatsApp notifications are chronologi

First of all, there's a known, deadly problem of disinformation spreading via WhatsApp forwarding [1], and I'm pretty sure WhatsApp notifications are chronological. But in any case, definitely none of this would be a problem if we got rid of the Internet. What's your point? Algorithmic newsfeeds benefit social media companies enormously (by increasing engagement) and at least some consumers (I'm not denying they also hurt some consumers). They'll never voluntarily give them up, and banning them would be an extremely oddly specific measure that's probably unconstitutional and definitely has lots of loopholes ("we're not an algorithm newsfeed---we just prioritizing your notifications, like Gmail's Priority Inbox"). They're here to stay. We can fix them or come up with something better that eclipses them, but there's no banning them. [1]: https://www.theverge.com/2019/1/21/18191455/whatsapp-forwarding-limit-five-messages-misinformation-battle https://www.theverge.com/2019/1/21/18191455/whatsapp-forward...

chatmasta 7y ago
I never suggested banning anything. I'm merely asking questions. But sure, to play devil's advocate, is there some precedent here? Maybe with cigarettes for example? Nicotine cigarettes benefit tobacco companies enormously (by increasing addiction). They'll never voluntarily give them up, either. Yet we have approaches for dealing with addictive consumables; taxes, health warnings, education, etc. I wonder if similar approaches might work when applied to social media.
- laughinghan 7y ago
  Thanks for the thoughtful response; upvoted. I don't think cigarettes are a relevant precedent. It's not like cigarettes cause cancer in some people and make others healthier. (I guess it can make you thinner? But yet it still increases your likelihood of heart disease.) Algorithmic newsfeeds are a much better experience for many people, who don't want thoughtful discussion and wedding and family photos buried under people announcing to the world that they're pooping. You also didn't respond to my point that deadly viral WhatsApp forwards refute your contention that "99%" of disinformation problems are due to algorithmic rather than chronological newsfeeds.
  - kikoreis 7y ago
    Other than rate-limiting, I don't know how you can avoid WhatsApp forwards becoming a problem without violating E2E encryption. However, WhatsApp seems to act more as an amplifier than as a net originator of content, so it makes sense to look at places where misinformation is first published. With pure timeline-based views, the ability to reinforce misinformation is diminished -- yes, people can repost and troll news mechanically, but that can be rate-limited. So I don't think we should throw the idea out the window just yet.
    - laughinghan 7y ago
      I'm not sure what you mean about acting as an amplifier---how is that different from social media like Facebook? You might be right about the reinforcement being diminished, just like misinformation existed before the Internet, but getting rid of the Internet would surely diminish the reinforcement. Like I asked above, so what? There's no going back.

chatmasta 7y ago

I never suggested banning anything. I'm merely asking questions. But sure, to play devil's advocate, is there some precedent here? Maybe with cigarettes for example? Nicotine cigarettes benefit tobacco companies enormously (by increasing addiction). They'll never voluntarily give them up, either. Yet we have approaches for dealing with addictive consumables; taxes, health warnings, education, etc. I wonder if similar approaches might work when applied to social media.

laughinghan 7y ago
Thanks for the thoughtful response; upvoted. I don't think cigarettes are a relevant precedent. It's not like cigarettes cause cancer in some people and make others healthier. (I guess it can make you thinner? But yet it still increases your likelihood of heart disease.) Algorithmic newsfeeds are a much better experience for many people, who don't want thoughtful discussion and wedding and family photos buried under people announcing to the world that they're pooping. You also didn't respond to my point that deadly viral WhatsApp forwards refute your contention that "99%" of disinformation problems are due to algorithmic rather than chronological newsfeeds.
- kikoreis 7y ago
  Other than rate-limiting, I don't know how you can avoid WhatsApp forwards becoming a problem without violating E2E encryption. However, WhatsApp seems to act more as an amplifier than as a net originator of content, so it makes sense to look at places where misinformation is first published. With pure timeline-based views, the ability to reinforce misinformation is diminished -- yes, people can repost and troll news mechanically, but that can be rate-limited. So I don't think we should throw the idea out the window just yet.
  - laughinghan 7y ago
    I'm not sure what you mean about acting as an amplifier---how is that different from social media like Facebook? You might be right about the reinforcement being diminished, just like misinformation existed before the Internet, but getting rid of the Internet would surely diminish the reinforcement. Like I asked above, so what? There's no going back.