13 ms·

Could Removing Social Media Metrics Reduce Polarization?

89 points by respinal 7y ago

SomeOldThrow 7y ago
Polarizing opinions drive views. It might help to tamper the anxiety from watching your own posts, but let's be real—social media is a polarizing place because there's money to be made from drama, even (especially?) if it's fictional. Looking to reduce polarization? Blame our ad model.
- MrRadar 7y ago
  CGP Grey's "This Video Will Make You Angry"[1] makes this point well. Opposing ideas will generate a lot of discussion/activity but mostly within the opposed groups instead of between them. That further drives polarization as the opposed groups mostly believe their own caricatures of the other group (which further disincentives cross-group discussion). [1] https://youtu.be/rE3j_RHkqJc https://youtu.be/rE3j_RHkqJc
not_a_cop75 7y ago
Making twitter a little less like Jerry Springer could definitely help. Don't promote tweets from opposing groups to opposing groups. How hard can this really be?
- 3wolf 7y ago
  They need to de-emphasize the blue checkmark. The eye is drawn towards it, and it lends tweets a false sense of authority. I'm not sure what a good solution is, as it is necessary to differentiate authentic accounts from fake ones, even for people who are not super-famous.
- charlesdenault 7y ago
  But that'd just create more echo chambers and destroy their engagement metrics, right? I feel like the contemporary draw of Twitter is the discourse.
  - rgoulter 7y ago
    I think there are good parts of Twitter. But it's also very easy to be a part of outrage-driven discussion. I liked this suggestion that one way to reduce outrage is to reveal the complexity of what's going on. https://thewholestory.solutionsjournalism.org/complicating-the-narratives-b91ea06ddf63 https://thewholestory.solutionsjournalism.org/complicating-t...
- gkoberger 7y ago
  I've never really seen tweets from opposing groups promoted to me. As a non-public-figure (AKA, nobody is directly @-ing me or attacking me), Twitter makes it really easy to stay in your own bubble. You follow who you want, and that's it. You might get some suggested tweets, but they're tweets fav'd or followed by people you're following.
  - SyneRyder 7y ago
    There's also the promoted/sponsored tweets, and I think that's what they were hinting at (eg a Chinese news agency promoting their pro-China news stories to Hong Kong Twitter users [1]). But that's very easy to avoid. Get one of the original Twitter clients like Tweetbot (iOS / MacOS) [2] or Fenix (Android) [3] and you'll get a chronological timeline, no promoted ads, mute/keyword filters, and you'll never see other people's likes & replies suggested to you as notifications. It puts you in control and removes the worst parts of Twitter. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20734808 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20734808 [2] https://tapbots.com/tweetbot/ https://tapbots.com/tweetbot/ [3] https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=it.mvilla.android.fenix2 https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=it.mvilla.andr...
    - not_a_cop75 7y ago
      Nothing really puts you in control of twitter, when half the Twittersphere is calling you a moron because you said one thing which is counter to half the population. It doesn't matter how much you ignore them once they put you on the news. You don't even have to be as stupid as the people below to have a negative outcome from Twitter. Just consistently use it to cite your honest moral opinion and I guarantee someone will hunt you down as if you were the worst serial killer. https://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/7-people-whose-lives-were-ruined-by-social-media/ https://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/7-people-whose-lives-were-ruin... https://www.theclever.com/15-tweets-that-have-ruined-peoples-lives/ https://www.theclever.com/15-tweets-that-have-ruined-peoples...
  - not_a_cop75 7y ago
    From someone who's been chased off of twitter, perhaps your opinions are simply mainstream? Or maybe you're just not popular enough to be attacked.
wvenable 7y ago
I've always thought that Reddit would be better without displaying karma. What value does it provide except to create a perverse goal for some people?
- austincheney 7y ago
  > What value does it provide Many people cannot form an original opinion. A vote count makes that decision for them.
  - wvenable 7y ago
    I'm not talking about vote count, I'm talking about individual user's karma counts.
    - hombre_fatal 7y ago
      Doesn't everyone benefit from the fact that there are people obsessed with finding content that appeals to them? It's like reposts: what do I care? Though I suppose you could argue this is good for their mental health. And I'm not convinced it would even have the tiniest impact on a polarized circlejerk like r/politics.
- cptskippy 7y ago
  It provides sentiment without clutter. Instead of 1000 identical comments or 1 comment with 1000 "same" or "this" comments underneath.
  - tenebrisalietum 7y ago
    You could still do that if the karma wasn't displayed.
    - tuukkah 7y ago
      How do you envision this working?
walterstucco 7y ago
Yes.
ginko 7y ago
I always wondered if social media instead of polarizing could actively counteract bubble metrics to lead people to a more centrist view. Essentially by "inverting" the interest function partially.
- vangelis 7y ago
  Who gets to decide what is extreme?
  - anigbrowl 7y ago
    The targets of extremism.
  - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
    The local majority.
- manfredo 7y ago
  Studies show that YouTube does largely do this. The recommendations are usually proximal to the current video but they do generally trend toward the center. I wrote my own YouTube crawler to test this empirically (or at least as empirically as I can, recommendations aren't exposed through an API and I had to use selenium). It is possible to go towards either extreme if one selectively chooses more and more left/right leaning videos, but a random traversal usually doesn't result in extreme content. It's generally difficult to gauge, because recommendations usually fall into what I call "topic pits" where once you view a few videos in a topic all subsequent recommendations will be in that topic. So my crawler would often fall into viewing a bunch of videos about gardening or math or something that is totally not political. By the point is, I never saw any trend of my crawler going down the "rabbit hole" that allegedly exists. The problem I see is that people's preexisting polarization means that they see a trend of centrist content as radicalizing. So you end up with liberals seeing centrist recommendations as pushing people to the right wing, and conservatives see a push to the center as restricting conservative content
- goda90 7y ago
  Years ago I daydreamed about making a social news aggregation website like Reddit(though I was more into Digg at the time) that focused the "karma" on getting multiple, mixed view points and perspectives on a story/topic. So like if there is an event, someone posts the first source they find on it. Others get karma by linking other sources. I think I was brainstorming ways to record where sources disagree and other ways of keeping things open and balanced.
the_watcher 7y ago
I think making reshares and retweets much harder than the 1-2 clicks it takes now would have far more impact.
sidthekid 7y ago
The physical world is hugely polarized. I don't see how tweaking the UI of websites is going to reduce real-world tendencies, it's a losing battle.
- beat 7y ago
  It seems to me the online world is more polarized (and abusive) than the real world.
  - thundergolfer 7y ago
    Online culture may have driven this, but in a survey of people in the USA people were asked which type of person they would least like their children to marry. The “types” were things like same-gender, transgender, Christian, Muslim, no-college, Republican. Those who identified as Democrats had Republican as “least liked”. Those who identified as Republican had the first two I listed. However more polarised online is, that above is real world polarisation, and it’s pretty serious. Source: https://open.spotify.com/episode/3ymwgbNCHG9f34dmxPNNuj?si=RivNDo1FS_CCG5mXiaud6w https://open.spotify.com/episode/3ymwgbNCHG9f34dmxPNNuj?si=R...
- president 7y ago
  Completely agree here. For most people, having that fired-up political debate makes them feel smart and empowered.
iikoolpp 7y ago
What is wrong with "polarization" beyond it being different to the centre? All this talk of it seems nothing more than mere reactionary. Surely, views from the extreme shouldn't just be dismissed, and we should understand why people hold those views instead of doubling down and trying to eliminate them.
- anigbrowl 7y ago
  We already understand that pretty well. Trying to hug it out with people who are already committed to killing you is a fool's errand. There are several groups devoted to deradicalization if you want to research that in greater depth.
  - dvtrn 7y ago
    Wow. That’s a huge chasm you’ve shoveled to define polarization, “people committed to killing you”, there are definitely extreme whackos out there but do you really think they’re that representative of the whole or is there maybe a more nuanced way of defining the polarization effects of social media?
    - anigbrowl 7y ago
      The GP was specifically talking about extremists.
    - pjc50 7y ago
      If we step it back a bit to "committed to policies which cause avoidable death", or "protection of those who have caused death by negligence", or "mistreatment of others in a context which is known to trigger suicide", then ... yes, that's all mainstream policy. One example of this was https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/katie-hopkins-when-is-enough-enough-10186490.html https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/katie-hopkins-when-is-e... ; now, is Katie Hopkins "an extreme whacko" for overtly demanding the murder of refugees, or is she "just saying what everyone is thinking" among Sun and LBC audiences?
- wvenable 7y ago
abtinf 7y ago
Question for the HN admins: What was the impact of removing vote counts from comments? What lessons did you draw from it?
- dang 7y ago
  I don't know. It was a long time ago. I could make an answer up, but you could do that too.
buboard 7y ago
Paywall. But how does the author deal with replies, which are a very strong metric?
mlb_hn 7y ago
Right before social media started to take off the academics were arguing if we were already seeing polarization [e.g. 0]. It might be worth considering whether the polarization trend changed with social media before attributing causes and potential solutions. [0] Abramowitz, A. I., & Saunders, K. L. (2008). Is polarization a myth?. The Journal of Politics, 70(2), 542-555. http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~jcampbel/documents/AbramowitzJOP_001.pdf http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~jcampbel/documents/AbramowitzJO...
jihadjihad 7y ago
> “The problem, of course, that Dorsey and Zuckerberg and everybody else are running into is they’ve built an entire business model in which metrics are a central component or central mechanism by which engagement with the platforms is driven.” This is the heart of the matter. These platforms exist not only to enable polarization, but their very business model thrives on polarization. There are a lot of other second-order effects, too, such as "The Perception Gap," which I saw posted to HN recently: https://perceptiongap.us/ https://perceptiongap.us/
anigbrowl 7y ago
No, the polarization (and attendant culture war) has been going on longer than social media as we know it have existed. It doesn't help, but it's just not the big factor it's assumed to be either - an assumption driven by social media companies' desire to trade engagement for ad $. The people who are doing most to drive social polarization are the least likely to be motivated by social proof. Consider that 8ch and its ilk have no social scoring mechanism but produce some of the most radical extremists.
- MuffinFlavored 7y ago
  > The people who are doing most to drive social polarization are the least likely to be motivated by social proof. Young females dedicating their lives to be Instagram fitness/fashion/bathing suit influencers would like to have a talk with you.
  - mulmen 7y ago
    Is the Instagram influencer motivated by polarization or by social proof? I think the GP is arguing that when your goal is polarization you don't care about social proof.
    - MuffinFlavored 7y ago
      Most Instagram influencers want you to know how awesome their body is. They want you to sign up for their fitness program or purchase (and envy) the latest fashion they are wearing. If you don't follow their fitness program or purchase their fashion, you're polarized against them, right? Because their lifestyle is the one with millions of followers and likes, not yours. Does that make sense?
      - mulmen 7y ago
        No, that doesn’t make sense. Polarization is a fundamental disagreement on some issue or set of issues. People pick sides for whatever reason and they are unlikely to ever change their beliefs. An influencer is just a marketer selling a personal brand for profit. It’s entirely different.
3xblah 7y ago
Could reducing polarization reduce profits?
beeschlenker 7y ago
Here some social media metrics that will be eliminated soon (hopefully): \0bama\rapes + kills 2 boys 15thJan2019 in Buffalo. DeBlasio kills 5 Buttgieg kills 5 Cuomo kills 4 Murray kills 3 Dorsey kills 3 Thiel kills 3. Trump $4 billion to cover. Pelosi $3 billion Harris $1 billion Schumer $2 billion to help bring the boys over the border. Trump $138 million to bypass 5th amendment BE SURE TO Listen! to previously unprocessed footage now available [Soros, 0bama child rapes 15Jan 4-6am], Obama around 524: "Why is there so much blood? Someone get me something to clean the blood off my dick..." 15JanCh3_347-528.avi https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Q8YeDzghf95FQrxBaMpXK4b-SfJYERs8/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Q8YeDzghf95FQrxBaMpXK4b-SfJ... 15JanCh3_528-545.avi https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DavyRFWTRv4_teHYewpQMwMCq6LDzb6Y/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DavyRFWTRv4_teHYewpQMwMCq6L... 15JanCh4_400-600.avi https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DavnBCyhq_JRmST2QH5qlojUE6dr5IWS/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DavnBCyhq_JRmST2QH5qlojUE6d... See pages 18-23, 8, 11, 12, 35, 45, 61, 62, and update list at end of doc.. Having trouble getting traction. Getting censored/banned. Billions in bribes paid to Trump, Pelosi, Schumer, Harris to enable a Soros funded child raping ring to operate in the USA. Please listen to the links below. Turn up the volume and put headphones on. You will hear these people, and many other high profile people, incriminate themselves in unbelievable fashion. Full 80 page document [update 20Aug] filled with red handed evidence like this at the bottom. Go to pages 18 through 23 of this document and you will hear Dorsey and Thiel raping children. You will hear their screams. They both rape and kill three. Also at the "rape party" of note: Bill DeBlasio, Andrew Cuomo, Bill Murray, Peter Buttgieg, George Soros, Barack Obama. Please copy and paste this post and repost it. I keep getting censored by these people. Peter Thiel a1nd Jack Dorsey raping and killing three boys each. Turn the volume all the way up and put head phones on. https://s3.wasabisys.com/conv1/Overnight_14-17Jan/15JanCh3_100-200.avi https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mzZrjobxhNIEf38M3xk-IeA5SeF4aUtB/view?usp=sharing O1bama admits to raping and killing boys here at about 547, with commentary from Peter Thiel, George Soros, Matt Porter: https://s3.wasabisys.com/out2/Out2/15JanCh3_0545.avi https://drive.google.com/file/d/1LCDoc1kT7cfSeKQ1vniP_sx32_bRsHau/view?usp=sharing Trump demands $4 billion to "take a blind eye" at 1015++ (link missing from report, unsure how). Here's pieces of dialogue: 1015 The President requests four billion and henry Porter agrees to it. Some dialogue below. 1017 Donald Trump: Why don't you think about it. 1017 Henry Porter: I don't need to think about it. I'm ready for you to find out what we're really about. 1017 Gigi Hadid: I don't think it's a good idea Henry. 1017 Henry Porter: ...no shit. Jelena just stop talking about it. 1018 Gigi Hadid: About what? 1018 Henry Porter: The child raping. 1018 Donald Trump: What the fuck are you talking about? 1018 Gigi Hadid: Mr. President we are child rapists. 1018 Donald Trump: You cannot be serious. 1018 Donald Trump: You're gonna need $4 billion for me to take a blind eye. 1019 ?: People are laughing because they think four billion is too much. I think it's not a problem when you have $35 billion. 1022 Donald Trump: You better have that $4 billion or you can kiss this shit goodbye. https://s3.wasabisys.com/conv2/3Jan/3JanCh3_900-1100.avi https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Grdr8xF2psKNsuYlEnl9dIRV-77YG0Vr/view?usp=sharing Trump wants $138 million to ensure smooth outcome for false judgment, as in no trial or hearing, simlpy entering in a judgement into the system thus bypassing the fifth amendment right of due process: https://s3.wasabisys.com/conv1/10JanCh3/10JanCh3_951-1033.avi https://drive.google.com/file/d/1iSeGHDToFRoRdIht50Wii0i30mlw9INp/view?usp=sharing Obama explains the Illuminati with Jack Dorsey...At 230 a conversation is occurring on the embedded Porter camera system with Jack Dorsey, Peter Thiel, Barack Obama, Bill Murray, and the Porter's. Jack Dorsey provides a statement defining who their group is: "The Illuminati is an underground organization of child rapists and homosexuals." Matthew Porter: "We have to thin the herd, so Barack is going to explain a few things." At 232 Barack Obama says the following: "You people have to realize we are child rapists. The Illuminati are child rapists. As soon as you figure that out, you can decide what to do. Everybody is freaking out about what just happened [child raping event still going on]. This is who we are.": https://s3.wasabisys.com/conv1/Overnight_14-17Jan/15JanCh3_200-347.avi https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ok1-9IvANULzKBOwADFgaiYCFi6yszfj/view?usp=sharing Full 80 page document [updated 20Aug]: https://s3.wasabisys.com/aviewmefirst/FBI_FinalDraft_26Jul2019_BSchlenker.pdf https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Sj9EN_pHmicKS6rFQlmk67knMdJc9cGk/view?usp=sharing \Please post this anywhere you can! Each google drive link is a backup to the wasabi link just in case one is "down". Getting blocked, censored, "downvoted" etc. These people are extremely wealthy and throw money to anyone who will help them cover up their child rapes & murders, corruption. Ironically, this is usually done through a receivership transfer, where you receive the funds after four or more day, and it can be pulled at the last second, whch is usually the case, after you've done them the "service". A word about the "f@\&&ot" usage: it was a necessary tool. It showed three things: they were not in control, if they were the usage would have be stopped. Everyone out there needed to see t%his. Two, it made it unpleasant for them to be in the headspace, which has obvious advantages. Three, it pointed out impersonators of BS because they would not call each other f@%%ot, thus helping to mitigate the spread of false information. Apologies for those unintentionally offended. Of special interest to the LGBT community, I give you Barack Obama in a foursome with Peter Thiel, Jack Dorsey, and Matthew Porter. It is on page 12 of the document where you can download the video containing audio footage of the "event". Link for the doc is just above under "Full 80 page document".
stewofkc 7y ago
It could definitely help. It's the social proof that comes with gettings tons of likes that helps low-quality or false news articles spread quickly.
wefarrell 7y ago
I don't trust Twitter and Facebook when they justify these proposals by claiming they improve social welfare. Hiding the number of likes makes their algorithm less transparent. Removing transparency makes it harder to distinguish between paid content. At the end of the day it's all about dollars.
someexgamedev 7y ago
I've experimented with this theory by opting myself out of these vanity metrics using a browser plugin I wrote to hide them. I can say that hiding them has reduced my engagement, which was my goal (the plugin is called Disengaged), but hasn't done anything for polarization. To establish a link between engagement with these sites and polarization, you would basically be taking the stance that these sites are inherently polarizing, so using them less (by removing the engagement generators) decreases polarization. Not a bad theory, but not one we can expect the businesses and investors behind these sites to implement on society's behalf.
victorvation 7y ago
Instagram is already testing hiding Like counts in several countries: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/18/world/instagram-hidden-likes.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/18/world/instagram-hidden-li...
aantix 7y ago
No. Remove the text. Make it a long form conversation. Yes, voice. So that you can hear inflection, empathy, sarcasm, hmmmms and uncertainty. Every tweet reads like a proclamation. No nuance.
jlian 7y ago
I like how WeChat does it for their "Moments" posts, where you can see only the number of Likes from your friends. https://www.quora.com/Who-can-see-what-you-publish-and-comment-in-the-Wechat-Moments-section https://www.quora.com/Who-can-see-what-you-publish-and-comme...
facethrowaway 7y ago
It’s a giant political dodge that has nothing to do with the underlying issues. You want to know what’s the real cancer, the real drug these dealers don’t want you regulating? The NOTIFICATIONS. That’s something everyone on the inside knows. The average person treats validating push notifications like a mouse getting cheese and will act out and continue to generate content to get it. Look at the emails and push notifications these companies send out to regular people on a constant, daily basis, and you will find the cancer you’re looking for. Eliminating like counts and follower numbers is a nice idea that excites teenage activists but is pointless now that these companies have already built accounts with zillions of followers.
- airstrike 7y ago
  > has nothing to do with the underlying issues You make a fair point, but I wouldn't say it's got nothing to do with the real problem. It's a step in the right direction, even if it isn't a panacea.
- xwdv 7y ago
  You hit the nail on the head. Don't remember where I saw it, but a long time just as smartphones were coming out I saw a bold take on what the next major platform would be. It wasn't going to be web, it wasn't going to be mobile, it was going to be NOTIFICATIONS. The app companies that understood this thrived, and the rest withered and died.
- needle0 7y ago
  I did notice that notifications were habit-inducing early on, and disabled them entirely for Facebook/Twitter/Email years ago. Still, finding myself regularly going back to all of them, I'm not sure that it's the only problem
  - Cd00d 7y ago
    This XKCD makes a similar argument highlighting opening habits rather than notifications: https://xkcd.com/2183/ https://xkcd.com/2183/
- 7y ago
leshokunin 7y ago
Absolutely. Anything you measure and show the measure as a sign of progression will skew things towards behaviors that lean towards an increased occurrence of that metric. To quote Worf: "If victory doesn't matter, why keep score?".
CptFribble 7y ago
Politics is driven by the most extreme, passionately held views because those people are the most motivated to do something about it. Responding to extremes is a game of chasing goalposts. Removing social media points isn't going to change any of that. People care more about belonging than being factually correct. As long as there is a place for two people who happen to share the same beliefs to find each other, polarization will continue to be a thing.
cwkoss 7y ago
Someone should make a social network where bots autonomously interact with and like your posts in a positive way, as part of the core design. Call it Turing Club
chiefalchemist 7y ago
The problem isn't the like button, that's a symptom. The problem is human nature; specifically confirmation bias. The internet has enabled people to find what they want to find and see what they want to see. We are a species that survived because we are social. That said, perhaps we are getting too close, too connected? Maybe we're wired for less "engagement"? Perhsps occasionally being quite and/or lonely has benefits?
crazygringo 7y ago
What?! Polarization has been around since long before social media. The two systemic factors driving it have been 1) open democratic primaries which push party nominees away from the center and towards greater polarization, and 2) increasingly polarized media originally driven cable TV news that could profitably deliver to a specific niche, e.g. Fox News, and websites generally. Social media is just the icing on the cake.
- ahartman00 7y ago
  The first paragraph in the introduction of this study lists more factors: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25897956 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25897956
6gvONxR4sf7o 7y ago
I don't know about polarization, but I'd bet it would make everything a little less addicting in a very healthy way. When I left facebook, part of the reason was that whenever I posted, it came from a weird emotional place. Instead of casual "i'm gonna share the thing" it was "think really hard about how to make it super cool." Here too, but to a lesser degree since it's more anonymous and I don't know you all.
- nradov 7y ago
  I don't see anything great about being casual. If I post some underwater photos on Facebook then I absolutely think hard about making them super cool! I don't waste my friends' time by posting sloppy garbage.

89 points by respinal 7y ago

Polarizing opinions drive views. It might help to tamper the anxiety from watching your own posts, but let's be real—social media is a polarizing place because there's money to be made from drama, even (especially?) if it's fictional. Looking to reduce polarization? Blame our ad model.

MrRadar 7y ago
CGP Grey's "This Video Will Make You Angry"[1] makes this point well. Opposing ideas will generate a lot of discussion/activity but mostly within the opposed groups instead of between them. That further drives polarization as the opposed groups mostly believe their own caricatures of the other group (which further disincentives cross-group discussion). [1] https://youtu.be/rE3j_RHkqJc https://youtu.be/rE3j_RHkqJc

not_a_cop75 7y ago

Making twitter a little less like Jerry Springer could definitely help. Don't promote tweets from opposing groups to opposing groups. How hard can this really be?

3wolf 7y ago
They need to de-emphasize the blue checkmark. The eye is drawn towards it, and it lends tweets a false sense of authority. I'm not sure what a good solution is, as it is necessary to differentiate authentic accounts from fake ones, even for people who are not super-famous.
charlesdenault 7y ago
But that'd just create more echo chambers and destroy their engagement metrics, right? I feel like the contemporary draw of Twitter is the discourse.
- rgoulter 7y ago
  I think there are good parts of Twitter. But it's also very easy to be a part of outrage-driven discussion. I liked this suggestion that one way to reduce outrage is to reveal the complexity of what's going on. https://thewholestory.solutionsjournalism.org/complicating-the-narratives-b91ea06ddf63 https://thewholestory.solutionsjournalism.org/complicating-t...
gkoberger 7y ago
I've never really seen tweets from opposing groups promoted to me. As a non-public-figure (AKA, nobody is directly @-ing me or attacking me), Twitter makes it really easy to stay in your own bubble. You follow who you want, and that's it. You might get some suggested tweets, but they're tweets fav'd or followed by people you're following.
- SyneRyder 7y ago
  There's also the promoted/sponsored tweets, and I think that's what they were hinting at (eg a Chinese news agency promoting their pro-China news stories to Hong Kong Twitter users [1]). But that's very easy to avoid. Get one of the original Twitter clients like Tweetbot (iOS / MacOS) [2] or Fenix (Android) [3] and you'll get a chronological timeline, no promoted ads, mute/keyword filters, and you'll never see other people's likes & replies suggested to you as notifications. It puts you in control and removes the worst parts of Twitter. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20734808 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20734808 [2] https://tapbots.com/tweetbot/ https://tapbots.com/tweetbot/ [3] https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=it.mvilla.android.fenix2 https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=it.mvilla.andr...
  - not_a_cop75 7y ago
    Nothing really puts you in control of twitter, when half the Twittersphere is calling you a moron because you said one thing which is counter to half the population. It doesn't matter how much you ignore them once they put you on the news. You don't even have to be as stupid as the people below to have a negative outcome from Twitter. Just consistently use it to cite your honest moral opinion and I guarantee someone will hunt you down as if you were the worst serial killer. https://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/7-people-whose-lives-were-ruined-by-social-media/ https://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/7-people-whose-lives-were-ruin... https://www.theclever.com/15-tweets-that-have-ruined-peoples-lives/ https://www.theclever.com/15-tweets-that-have-ruined-peoples...
- not_a_cop75 7y ago
  From someone who's been chased off of twitter, perhaps your opinions are simply mainstream? Or maybe you're just not popular enough to be attacked.

wvenable 7y ago

I've always thought that Reddit would be better without displaying karma. What value does it provide except to create a perverse goal for some people?

austincheney 7y ago
> What value does it provide Many people cannot form an original opinion. A vote count makes that decision for them.
- wvenable 7y ago
  I'm not talking about vote count, I'm talking about individual user's karma counts.
  - hombre_fatal 7y ago
    Doesn't everyone benefit from the fact that there are people obsessed with finding content that appeals to them? It's like reposts: what do I care? Though I suppose you could argue this is good for their mental health. And I'm not convinced it would even have the tiniest impact on a polarized circlejerk like r/politics.
cptskippy 7y ago
It provides sentiment without clutter. Instead of 1000 identical comments or 1 comment with 1000 "same" or "this" comments underneath.
- tenebrisalietum 7y ago
  You could still do that if the karma wasn't displayed.
  - tuukkah 7y ago
    How do you envision this working?

walterstucco 7y ago

Yes.

ginko 7y ago

I always wondered if social media instead of polarizing could actively counteract bubble metrics to lead people to a more centrist view. Essentially by "inverting" the interest function partially.

vangelis 7y ago
Who gets to decide what is extreme?
- anigbrowl 7y ago
  The targets of extremism.
- dsfyu404ed 7y ago
  The local majority.
manfredo 7y ago
Studies show that YouTube does largely do this. The recommendations are usually proximal to the current video but they do generally trend toward the center. I wrote my own YouTube crawler to test this empirically (or at least as empirically as I can, recommendations aren't exposed through an API and I had to use selenium). It is possible to go towards either extreme if one selectively chooses more and more left/right leaning videos, but a random traversal usually doesn't result in extreme content. It's generally difficult to gauge, because recommendations usually fall into what I call "topic pits" where once you view a few videos in a topic all subsequent recommendations will be in that topic. So my crawler would often fall into viewing a bunch of videos about gardening or math or something that is totally not political. By the point is, I never saw any trend of my crawler going down the "rabbit hole" that allegedly exists. The problem I see is that people's preexisting polarization means that they see a trend of centrist content as radicalizing. So you end up with liberals seeing centrist recommendations as pushing people to the right wing, and conservatives see a push to the center as restricting conservative content
goda90 7y ago
Years ago I daydreamed about making a social news aggregation website like Reddit(though I was more into Digg at the time) that focused the "karma" on getting multiple, mixed view points and perspectives on a story/topic. So like if there is an event, someone posts the first source they find on it. Others get karma by linking other sources. I think I was brainstorming ways to record where sources disagree and other ways of keeping things open and balanced.

the_watcher 7y ago

I think making reshares and retweets much harder than the 1-2 clicks it takes now would have far more impact.

sidthekid 7y ago

The physical world is hugely polarized. I don't see how tweaking the UI of websites is going to reduce real-world tendencies, it's a losing battle.

beat 7y ago
It seems to me the online world is more polarized (and abusive) than the real world.
- thundergolfer 7y ago
  Online culture may have driven this, but in a survey of people in the USA people were asked which type of person they would least like their children to marry. The “types” were things like same-gender, transgender, Christian, Muslim, no-college, Republican. Those who identified as Democrats had Republican as “least liked”. Those who identified as Republican had the first two I listed. However more polarised online is, that above is real world polarisation, and it’s pretty serious. Source: https://open.spotify.com/episode/3ymwgbNCHG9f34dmxPNNuj?si=RivNDo1FS_CCG5mXiaud6w https://open.spotify.com/episode/3ymwgbNCHG9f34dmxPNNuj?si=R...
president 7y ago
Completely agree here. For most people, having that fired-up political debate makes them feel smart and empowered.

iikoolpp 7y ago

What is wrong with "polarization" beyond it being different to the centre? All this talk of it seems nothing more than mere reactionary. Surely, views from the extreme shouldn't just be dismissed, and we should understand why people hold those views instead of doubling down and trying to eliminate them.

anigbrowl 7y ago
We already understand that pretty well. Trying to hug it out with people who are already committed to killing you is a fool's errand. There are several groups devoted to deradicalization if you want to research that in greater depth.
- dvtrn 7y ago
  Wow. That’s a huge chasm you’ve shoveled to define polarization, “people committed to killing you”, there are definitely extreme whackos out there but do you really think they’re that representative of the whole or is there maybe a more nuanced way of defining the polarization effects of social media?
  - anigbrowl 7y ago
    The GP was specifically talking about extremists.
  - pjc50 7y ago
    If we step it back a bit to "committed to policies which cause avoidable death", or "protection of those who have caused death by negligence", or "mistreatment of others in a context which is known to trigger suicide", then ... yes, that's all mainstream policy. One example of this was https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/katie-hopkins-when-is-enough-enough-10186490.html https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/katie-hopkins-when-is-e... ; now, is Katie Hopkins "an extreme whacko" for overtly demanding the murder of refugees, or is she "just saying what everyone is thinking" among Sun and LBC audiences?
wvenable 7y ago

abtinf 7y ago

Question for the HN admins: What was the impact of removing vote counts from comments? What lessons did you draw from it?

dang 7y ago
I don't know. It was a long time ago. I could make an answer up, but you could do that too.

buboard 7y ago

Paywall. But how does the author deal with replies, which are a very strong metric?

mlb_hn 7y ago

Right before social media started to take off the academics were arguing if we were already seeing polarization [e.g. 0]. It might be worth considering whether the polarization trend changed with social media before attributing causes and potential solutions. [0] Abramowitz, A. I., & Saunders, K. L. (2008). Is polarization a myth?. The Journal of Politics, 70(2), 542-555. http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~jcampbel/documents/AbramowitzJOP_001.pdf http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~jcampbel/documents/AbramowitzJO...

jihadjihad 7y ago

> “The problem, of course, that Dorsey and Zuckerberg and everybody else are running into is they’ve built an entire business model in which metrics are a central component or central mechanism by which engagement with the platforms is driven.” This is the heart of the matter. These platforms exist not only to enable polarization, but their very business model thrives on polarization. There are a lot of other second-order effects, too, such as "The Perception Gap," which I saw posted to HN recently: https://perceptiongap.us/ https://perceptiongap.us/

anigbrowl 7y ago

No, the polarization (and attendant culture war) has been going on longer than social media as we know it have existed. It doesn't help, but it's just not the big factor it's assumed to be either - an assumption driven by social media companies' desire to trade engagement for ad $. The people who are doing most to drive social polarization are the least likely to be motivated by social proof. Consider that 8ch and its ilk have no social scoring mechanism but produce some of the most radical extremists.

MuffinFlavored 7y ago
> The people who are doing most to drive social polarization are the least likely to be motivated by social proof. Young females dedicating their lives to be Instagram fitness/fashion/bathing suit influencers would like to have a talk with you.
- mulmen 7y ago
  Is the Instagram influencer motivated by polarization or by social proof? I think the GP is arguing that when your goal is polarization you don't care about social proof.
  - MuffinFlavored 7y ago
    Most Instagram influencers want you to know how awesome their body is. They want you to sign up for their fitness program or purchase (and envy) the latest fashion they are wearing. If you don't follow their fitness program or purchase their fashion, you're polarized against them, right? Because their lifestyle is the one with millions of followers and likes, not yours. Does that make sense?
    - mulmen 7y ago
      No, that doesn’t make sense. Polarization is a fundamental disagreement on some issue or set of issues. People pick sides for whatever reason and they are unlikely to ever change their beliefs. An influencer is just a marketer selling a personal brand for profit. It’s entirely different.

3xblah 7y ago

Could reducing polarization reduce profits?

beeschlenker 7y ago

Here some social media metrics that will be eliminated soon (hopefully): \0bama\rapes + kills 2 boys 15thJan2019 in Buffalo. DeBlasio kills 5 Buttgieg kills 5 Cuomo kills 4 Murray kills 3 Dorsey kills 3 Thiel kills 3. Trump $4 billion to cover. Pelosi $3 billion Harris $1 billion Schumer $2 billion to help bring the boys over the border. Trump $138 million to bypass 5th amendment BE SURE TO Listen! to previously unprocessed footage now available [Soros, 0bama child rapes 15Jan 4-6am], Obama around 524: "Why is there so much blood? Someone get me something to clean the blood off my dick..." 15JanCh3_347-528.avi https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Q8YeDzghf95FQrxBaMpXK4b-SfJYERs8/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Q8YeDzghf95FQrxBaMpXK4b-SfJ... 15JanCh3_528-545.avi https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DavyRFWTRv4_teHYewpQMwMCq6LDzb6Y/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DavyRFWTRv4_teHYewpQMwMCq6L... 15JanCh4_400-600.avi https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DavnBCyhq_JRmST2QH5qlojUE6dr5IWS/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DavnBCyhq_JRmST2QH5qlojUE6d... See pages 18-23, 8, 11, 12, 35, 45, 61, 62, and update list at end of doc.. Having trouble getting traction. Getting censored/banned. Billions in bribes paid to Trump, Pelosi, Schumer, Harris to enable a Soros funded child raping ring to operate in the USA. Please listen to the links below. Turn up the volume and put headphones on. You will hear these people, and many other high profile people, incriminate themselves in unbelievable fashion. Full 80 page document [update 20Aug] filled with red handed evidence like this at the bottom. Go to pages 18 through 23 of this document and you will hear Dorsey and Thiel raping children. You will hear their screams. They both rape and kill three. Also at the "rape party" of note: Bill DeBlasio, Andrew Cuomo, Bill Murray, Peter Buttgieg, George Soros, Barack Obama. Please copy and paste this post and repost it. I keep getting censored by these people. Peter Thiel a1nd Jack Dorsey raping and killing three boys each. Turn the volume all the way up and put head phones on. https://s3.wasabisys.com/conv1/Overnight_14-17Jan/15JanCh3_100-200.avi https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mzZrjobxhNIEf38M3xk-IeA5SeF4aUtB/view?usp=sharing O1bama admits to raping and killing boys here at about 547, with commentary from Peter Thiel, George Soros, Matt Porter: https://s3.wasabisys.com/out2/Out2/15JanCh3_0545.avi https://drive.google.com/file/d/1LCDoc1kT7cfSeKQ1vniP_sx32_bRsHau/view?usp=sharing Trump demands $4 billion to "take a blind eye" at 1015++ (link missing from report, unsure how). Here's pieces of dialogue: 1015 The President requests four billion and henry Porter agrees to it. Some dialogue below. 1017 Donald Trump: Why don't you think about it. 1017 Henry Porter: I don't need to think about it. I'm ready for you to find out what we're really about. 1017 Gigi Hadid: I don't think it's a good idea Henry. 1017 Henry Porter: ...no shit. Jelena just stop talking about it. 1018 Gigi Hadid: About what? 1018 Henry Porter: The child raping. 1018 Donald Trump: What the fuck are you talking about? 1018 Gigi Hadid: Mr. President we are child rapists. 1018 Donald Trump: You cannot be serious. 1018 Donald Trump: You're gonna need $4 billion for me to take a blind eye. 1019 ?: People are laughing because they think four billion is too much. I think it's not a problem when you have $35 billion. 1022 Donald Trump: You better have that $4 billion or you can kiss this shit goodbye. https://s3.wasabisys.com/conv2/3Jan/3JanCh3_900-1100.avi https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Grdr8xF2psKNsuYlEnl9dIRV-77YG0Vr/view?usp=sharing Trump wants $138 million to ensure smooth outcome for false judgment, as in no trial or hearing, simlpy entering in a judgement into the system thus bypassing the fifth amendment right of due process: https://s3.wasabisys.com/conv1/10JanCh3/10JanCh3_951-1033.avi https://drive.google.com/file/d/1iSeGHDToFRoRdIht50Wii0i30mlw9INp/view?usp=sharing Obama explains the Illuminati with Jack Dorsey...At 230 a conversation is occurring on the embedded Porter camera system with Jack Dorsey, Peter Thiel, Barack Obama, Bill Murray, and the Porter's. Jack Dorsey provides a statement defining who their group is: "The Illuminati is an underground organization of child rapists and homosexuals." Matthew Porter: "We have to thin the herd, so Barack is going to explain a few things." At 232 Barack Obama says the following: "You people have to realize we are child rapists. The Illuminati are child rapists. As soon as you figure that out, you can decide what to do. Everybody is freaking out about what just happened [child raping event still going on]. This is who we are.": https://s3.wasabisys.com/conv1/Overnight_14-17Jan/15JanCh3_200-347.avi https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ok1-9IvANULzKBOwADFgaiYCFi6yszfj/view?usp=sharing Full 80 page document [updated 20Aug]: https://s3.wasabisys.com/aviewmefirst/FBI_FinalDraft_26Jul2019_BSchlenker.pdf https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Sj9EN_pHmicKS6rFQlmk67knMdJc9cGk/view?usp=sharing \Please post this anywhere you can! Each google drive link is a backup to the wasabi link just in case one is "down". Getting blocked, censored, "downvoted" etc. These people are extremely wealthy and throw money to anyone who will help them cover up their child rapes & murders, corruption. Ironically, this is usually done through a receivership transfer, where you receive the funds after four or more day, and it can be pulled at the last second, whch is usually the case, after you've done them the "service". A word about the "f@\&&ot" usage: it was a necessary tool. It showed three things: they were not in control, if they were the usage would have be stopped. Everyone out there needed to see t%his. Two, it made it unpleasant for them to be in the headspace, which has obvious advantages. Three, it pointed out impersonators of BS because they would not call each other f@%%ot, thus helping to mitigate the spread of false information. Apologies for those unintentionally offended. Of special interest to the LGBT community, I give you Barack Obama in a foursome with Peter Thiel, Jack Dorsey, and Matthew Porter. It is on page 12 of the document where you can download the video containing audio footage of the "event". Link for the doc is just above under "Full 80 page document".

stewofkc 7y ago

It could definitely help. It's the social proof that comes with gettings tons of likes that helps low-quality or false news articles spread quickly.

wefarrell 7y ago

I don't trust Twitter and Facebook when they justify these proposals by claiming they improve social welfare. Hiding the number of likes makes their algorithm less transparent. Removing transparency makes it harder to distinguish between paid content. At the end of the day it's all about dollars.

someexgamedev 7y ago

I've experimented with this theory by opting myself out of these vanity metrics using a browser plugin I wrote to hide them. I can say that hiding them has reduced my engagement, which was my goal (the plugin is called Disengaged), but hasn't done anything for polarization. To establish a link between engagement with these sites and polarization, you would basically be taking the stance that these sites are inherently polarizing, so using them less (by removing the engagement generators) decreases polarization. Not a bad theory, but not one we can expect the businesses and investors behind these sites to implement on society's behalf.

victorvation 7y ago

Instagram is already testing hiding Like counts in several countries: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/18/world/instagram-hidden-likes.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/18/world/instagram-hidden-li...

aantix 7y ago

No. Remove the text. Make it a long form conversation. Yes, voice. So that you can hear inflection, empathy, sarcasm, hmmmms and uncertainty. Every tweet reads like a proclamation. No nuance.

jlian 7y ago

I like how WeChat does it for their "Moments" posts, where you can see only the number of Likes from your friends. https://www.quora.com/Who-can-see-what-you-publish-and-comment-in-the-Wechat-Moments-section https://www.quora.com/Who-can-see-what-you-publish-and-comme...

facethrowaway 7y ago

It’s a giant political dodge that has nothing to do with the underlying issues. You want to know what’s the real cancer, the real drug these dealers don’t want you regulating? The NOTIFICATIONS. That’s something everyone on the inside knows. The average person treats validating push notifications like a mouse getting cheese and will act out and continue to generate content to get it. Look at the emails and push notifications these companies send out to regular people on a constant, daily basis, and you will find the cancer you’re looking for. Eliminating like counts and follower numbers is a nice idea that excites teenage activists but is pointless now that these companies have already built accounts with zillions of followers.

airstrike 7y ago
> has nothing to do with the underlying issues You make a fair point, but I wouldn't say it's got nothing to do with the real problem. It's a step in the right direction, even if it isn't a panacea.
xwdv 7y ago
You hit the nail on the head. Don't remember where I saw it, but a long time just as smartphones were coming out I saw a bold take on what the next major platform would be. It wasn't going to be web, it wasn't going to be mobile, it was going to be NOTIFICATIONS. The app companies that understood this thrived, and the rest withered and died.
needle0 7y ago
I did notice that notifications were habit-inducing early on, and disabled them entirely for Facebook/Twitter/Email years ago. Still, finding myself regularly going back to all of them, I'm not sure that it's the only problem
- Cd00d 7y ago
  This XKCD makes a similar argument highlighting opening habits rather than notifications: https://xkcd.com/2183/ https://xkcd.com/2183/
7y ago

leshokunin 7y ago

Absolutely. Anything you measure and show the measure as a sign of progression will skew things towards behaviors that lean towards an increased occurrence of that metric. To quote Worf: "If victory doesn't matter, why keep score?".

CptFribble 7y ago

Politics is driven by the most extreme, passionately held views because those people are the most motivated to do something about it. Responding to extremes is a game of chasing goalposts. Removing social media points isn't going to change any of that. People care more about belonging than being factually correct. As long as there is a place for two people who happen to share the same beliefs to find each other, polarization will continue to be a thing.

cwkoss 7y ago

Someone should make a social network where bots autonomously interact with and like your posts in a positive way, as part of the core design. Call it Turing Club

chiefalchemist 7y ago

The problem isn't the like button, that's a symptom. The problem is human nature; specifically confirmation bias. The internet has enabled people to find what they want to find and see what they want to see. We are a species that survived because we are social. That said, perhaps we are getting too close, too connected? Maybe we're wired for less "engagement"? Perhsps occasionally being quite and/or lonely has benefits?

crazygringo 7y ago

What?! Polarization has been around since long before social media. The two systemic factors driving it have been 1) open democratic primaries which push party nominees away from the center and towards greater polarization, and 2) increasingly polarized media originally driven cable TV news that could profitably deliver to a specific niche, e.g. Fox News, and websites generally. Social media is just the icing on the cake.

ahartman00 7y ago
The first paragraph in the introduction of this study lists more factors: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25897956 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25897956

6gvONxR4sf7o 7y ago

I don't know about polarization, but I'd bet it would make everything a little less addicting in a very healthy way. When I left facebook, part of the reason was that whenever I posted, it came from a weird emotional place. Instead of casual "i'm gonna share the thing" it was "think really hard about how to make it super cool." Here too, but to a lesser degree since it's more anonymous and I don't know you all.

nradov 7y ago
I don't see anything great about being casual. If I post some underwater photos on Facebook then I absolutely think hard about making them super cool! I don't waste my friends' time by posting sloppy garbage.