3 ms·

Libertarians are real free enterprise until it affects their lives... But before I get thrashed for hurthing feelings, the real problem is these networks act l

Libertarians are real free enterprise until it affects their lives... But before I get thrashed for hurthing feelings, the real problem is these networks act like pubs and open networks. Paid amplification is almost certainly the problem in that it allows money to act as speech. by allowing it to reach more people that didnt seek it. Historically a wild fringe idea stayed that way because it was hard to convert people at scale. Now a fringe/bad idea coming from a group of power and "pump up the juice." It would be interesting if they either limited the pay for audience equation or create hypertransperency around who is behind the message. All in all, Facebook is going to be heavily regulated over the next decade and I hope they're diversifying somewhere. The newspapers were fractured, "The Bells," and it seems historically governments step in after about 10-20 years of abuse.

tomohawk 6y ago
What is "free enterprise" about the activities of monopolies like Google? Monopolies restrain trade an prevent free enterprise. Google and the other monopolies do not deserve any special protection.
api 6y ago
Paid amplification isn't the fundamental problem, but it contributes. The root of all evil on the Internet in the past 10-15 years is algorithmic timelines and algorithmic content curation whose goal function is to increase engagement. What increases engagement? Fear, hate, conflict, and spectacle. The media has understood this for years: "if it bleeds it leads." People have a strong bias to stare at danger, probably a social adaptation to notice if a mountain lion is attacking your tribe. But when you apply it to user-generated free content, the result is the familiar "rabbit hole" and "filter bubble" phenomena and folie a deux at scale. Back when humans directly curated content via curated lists, organic timelines that were actually just timelines, and organic non-spam-driven hyperlinking, everything was more rational and less toxic. (Even Reddit/HN style voting is better if it's truly organic and not biased by some algorithm, though it does lead to a different sort of "Borg" phenomenon sometimes.) Even the fringe was far less toxic and more reasonable. Go find some conspiracy or other fringe topic sites from prior to 2010 on the Wayback Machine. The problem isn't humans. The problem is that we stuck a middleman in front of human group communication and programmed that middleman to bias what messages are shown in a way that tends to amplify negativity, irrationality, and fluff as opposed to more useful and interesting but less dopamine-releasing content.
- CerealFounder 6y ago
  I like what you wrote here. I think you're right

tomohawk 6y ago

What is "free enterprise" about the activities of monopolies like Google? Monopolies restrain trade an prevent free enterprise. Google and the other monopolies do not deserve any special protection.

api 6y ago

Paid amplification isn't the fundamental problem, but it contributes. The root of all evil on the Internet in the past 10-15 years is algorithmic timelines and algorithmic content curation whose goal function is to increase engagement. What increases engagement? Fear, hate, conflict, and spectacle. The media has understood this for years: "if it bleeds it leads." People have a strong bias to stare at danger, probably a social adaptation to notice if a mountain lion is attacking your tribe. But when you apply it to user-generated free content, the result is the familiar "rabbit hole" and "filter bubble" phenomena and folie a deux at scale. Back when humans directly curated content via curated lists, organic timelines that were actually just timelines, and organic non-spam-driven hyperlinking, everything was more rational and less toxic. (Even Reddit/HN style voting is better if it's truly organic and not biased by some algorithm, though it does lead to a different sort of "Borg" phenomenon sometimes.) Even the fringe was far less toxic and more reasonable. Go find some conspiracy or other fringe topic sites from prior to 2010 on the Wayback Machine. The problem isn't humans. The problem is that we stuck a middleman in front of human group communication and programmed that middleman to bias what messages are shown in a way that tends to amplify negativity, irrationality, and fluff as opposed to more useful and interesting but less dopamine-releasing content.

CerealFounder 6y ago
I like what you wrote here. I think you're right