7 ms·

They focus on misinformation, but I would argue that a deluge of "noise" is also pollution: the vast amounts of irrelevant, distracting content, and the popular

They focus on misinformation, but I would argue that a deluge of "noise" is also pollution: the vast amounts of irrelevant, distracting content, and the popular platforms that do little to help us reduce that noise.

svara 7y ago
Exactly. I don't think it's really the popular platforms' fault though. Simply what has happened is that the internet has dramatically lowered the cost of distributing and of consuming information. Therefore, information gets distributed and consumed that would not have been worth the cost in the past.
- ssivark 7y ago
  Your point about the distribution costs is true, but platforms have a huge role in shaping those costs. If they encouraged curation/filtering, the distribution costs of unwelcome content would increase. But platforms want to flood people with content for two reasons: 1. Induce people to linger longer, thereby increasing “engagement”. 2. Insert promoted content (ads) into the deluge such that they become hard to filter out. So sharing/dissemination platforms deserve as much of the blame as any other factor.
  - svara 7y ago
    True, but you're expecting the platforms to behave honorably and not in the way that maximizes their profits. My point is the platforms' business model is a consequence of the economics of online information distribution. Or to put it differently: anyone is free to create a competing platform that only hosts "high quality" content, but it seems no one has found out how to make that work on a large scale so far.
    - TeMPOraL 7y ago
      That's a good reason to regulate some of these practices out of existence. As you say, what happens today is a natural low point in the landscape of online information distribution; the only way to raise it is to reconfigure the landscape.
mikedilger 7y ago
But the Internet is mostly pull not push. If you are under a deluge of noise, you have the power to control that. I think FOMO has led people to make poor decisions, driving people to Facebook and Twitter, and subsequently they find themselves overwhelmed with noise. It can be somewhat addictive too since it's cheap excitement and satisfaction; but that also erodes your willpower to do actual work. I recommend disconnecting.
- a1369209993 7y ago
  > If you are under a deluge of noise, you have the power to control that. This may be true in principle, but the fact that advertising exists, or even can exist, refutes this in practice.
- andrei_says_ 7y ago
  Great idea. I’ll be back mid May.
- Reelin 7y ago
  > If you are under a deluge of noise, you have the power to control that. Let's flip that around to illustrate the systemic issue here. Earlier today, there was a front page HN submission that touched on alcoholism. It seems to me that the statement, "Alcohol is mostly pull not push. If you are consuming too much alcohol, you have the ability to control that." is not a reasonable one when applied to an alcoholic. To be clear, the above statement regarding alcohol is reasonable for me - but then I'm not an alcoholic. Similarly, while many people are capable of regulating their "information consumption" as you suggest, it is clear that there are also many who struggle to do so. I don't pretend to actually have a workable solution; I just wanted to try to illustrate the systemic aspect of the issue.
  - mercer 7y ago
    Without trying to make a particular point for or against your point, I'd argue that alcohol is most definitely not 'pull', even in a time where overt advertising for alcohol appears to be regulated. Alcohol is extremely difficult to avoid, for various reasons. Primarily social, but to a lesser degree in entertainment. In the same way that once upon a time the cool actors smoked (and sometimes they still do), drinking is still omnipresent in film/tv. I'd say this supports your perspective, but mostly I just wanted to point that out. Alcohol is definitely nowhere near close to being a 'pull' sort of indulgence.
TheFiend7 7y ago
I would disagree with that idea that the vast amount of irrelevant and distracting content is somehow the problem. Believe it or not it's an incredibly challenging problem. Google is burned at the stake everyday for their biased response on searches when they're parsing disgusting amounts of data and attempting to minimize noise. It's a damned if you do and damned if you don't honestly, because even if you can effectively minimize returns for a given query (regardless of topic), there is then information loss to some degree and therefore arguably a bias.
- whiddershins 7y ago
  It’s not arguably a bias. It is literally a bias. People get confused about this sometimes but not all bias is bad. I, for example, am biased against lies and towards truth.
  - krapp 7y ago
    >I, for example, am biased against lies and towards truth. Everyone believes that, even flat earthers and anti-vaxxers believe that.

svara 7y ago

Exactly. I don't think it's really the popular platforms' fault though. Simply what has happened is that the internet has dramatically lowered the cost of distributing and of consuming information. Therefore, information gets distributed and consumed that would not have been worth the cost in the past.

ssivark 7y ago
Your point about the distribution costs is true, but platforms have a huge role in shaping those costs. If they encouraged curation/filtering, the distribution costs of unwelcome content would increase. But platforms want to flood people with content for two reasons: 1. Induce people to linger longer, thereby increasing “engagement”. 2. Insert promoted content (ads) into the deluge such that they become hard to filter out. So sharing/dissemination platforms deserve as much of the blame as any other factor.
- svara 7y ago
  True, but you're expecting the platforms to behave honorably and not in the way that maximizes their profits. My point is the platforms' business model is a consequence of the economics of online information distribution. Or to put it differently: anyone is free to create a competing platform that only hosts "high quality" content, but it seems no one has found out how to make that work on a large scale so far.
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    That's a good reason to regulate some of these practices out of existence. As you say, what happens today is a natural low point in the landscape of online information distribution; the only way to raise it is to reconfigure the landscape.

mikedilger 7y ago

But the Internet is mostly pull not push. If you are under a deluge of noise, you have the power to control that. I think FOMO has led people to make poor decisions, driving people to Facebook and Twitter, and subsequently they find themselves overwhelmed with noise. It can be somewhat addictive too since it's cheap excitement and satisfaction; but that also erodes your willpower to do actual work. I recommend disconnecting.

a1369209993 7y ago
> If you are under a deluge of noise, you have the power to control that. This may be true in principle, but the fact that advertising exists, or even can exist, refutes this in practice.
andrei_says_ 7y ago
Great idea. I’ll be back mid May.
Reelin 7y ago
> If you are under a deluge of noise, you have the power to control that. Let's flip that around to illustrate the systemic issue here. Earlier today, there was a front page HN submission that touched on alcoholism. It seems to me that the statement, "Alcohol is mostly pull not push. If you are consuming too much alcohol, you have the ability to control that." is not a reasonable one when applied to an alcoholic. To be clear, the above statement regarding alcohol is reasonable for me - but then I'm not an alcoholic. Similarly, while many people are capable of regulating their "information consumption" as you suggest, it is clear that there are also many who struggle to do so. I don't pretend to actually have a workable solution; I just wanted to try to illustrate the systemic aspect of the issue.
- mercer 7y ago
  Without trying to make a particular point for or against your point, I'd argue that alcohol is most definitely not 'pull', even in a time where overt advertising for alcohol appears to be regulated. Alcohol is extremely difficult to avoid, for various reasons. Primarily social, but to a lesser degree in entertainment. In the same way that once upon a time the cool actors smoked (and sometimes they still do), drinking is still omnipresent in film/tv. I'd say this supports your perspective, but mostly I just wanted to point that out. Alcohol is definitely nowhere near close to being a 'pull' sort of indulgence.

TheFiend7 7y ago

I would disagree with that idea that the vast amount of irrelevant and distracting content is somehow the problem. Believe it or not it's an incredibly challenging problem. Google is burned at the stake everyday for their biased response on searches when they're parsing disgusting amounts of data and attempting to minimize noise. It's a damned if you do and damned if you don't honestly, because even if you can effectively minimize returns for a given query (regardless of topic), there is then information loss to some degree and therefore arguably a bias.

whiddershins 7y ago
It’s not arguably a bias. It is literally a bias. People get confused about this sometimes but not all bias is bad. I, for example, am biased against lies and towards truth.
- krapp 7y ago
  >I, for example, am biased against lies and towards truth. Everyone believes that, even flat earthers and anti-vaxxers believe that.