2 ms·

> Nuanced discussion or having a deep engagement with a person is often impossible. Of course this is impossible if the other party is not interested, but the

by chalst 6y ago

> Nuanced discussion or having a deep engagement with a person is often impossible. Of course this is impossible if the other party is not interested, but the format doesn't prevent engagement. The problem is that this engagement takes work and is rewarded less than the "hot takes" you describe. The literature on trust metrics that Raph has made a contribution to does suggest that the gamification can be tuned to reward constructive interactions. Given the recent advertiser boycott of Facebook, it is possible that there is now an incentive for applying these ideas in the context of popular social metrics.

nullc 6y ago
Prevent might be too strong a description, but discourage deeper engagement while radically facilitating the opposite? > can be tuned Sure, maybe. But thus far they haven't been. I'm a bit dubious that intentional interventions wouldn't also have their own substantial negative effects. Our online communications platforms have a much greater effect on many people than a great many drugs that we only make available by prescription do... yet we've tapped in most of the country to them on a 16-hour a day central line drip feed before we ever really began studying their effects.
- chalst 6y ago
  > But thus far they haven't been. They haven't been because the social media platforms have been chasing engagement as their only target and that favours toxicity. But many advertisers are allergic to toxicity: there may be space for a social media platform that tries to avoid the toxic forms of engagement. > I'm a bit dubious that intentional interventions wouldn't also have their own substantial negative effects. The current system has been shaped by intentional interventions. The alternative regime should be judged relative to the status quo. I recommend Richard Seymour's 'The Twittering Machine' on the nature of those intentional interventions; cf. review: https://www.rs21.org.uk/2019/11/16/review-the-twittering-machine/ https://www.rs21.org.uk/2019/11/16/review-the-twittering-mac...

by chalst 6y ago

nullc 6y ago

Prevent might be too strong a description, but discourage deeper engagement while radically facilitating the opposite? > can be tuned Sure, maybe. But thus far they haven't been. I'm a bit dubious that intentional interventions wouldn't also have their own substantial negative effects. Our online communications platforms have a much greater effect on many people than a great many drugs that we only make available by prescription do... yet we've tapped in most of the country to them on a 16-hour a day central line drip feed before we ever really began studying their effects.

chalst 6y ago
> But thus far they haven't been. They haven't been because the social media platforms have been chasing engagement as their only target and that favours toxicity. But many advertisers are allergic to toxicity: there may be space for a social media platform that tries to avoid the toxic forms of engagement. > I'm a bit dubious that intentional interventions wouldn't also have their own substantial negative effects. The current system has been shaped by intentional interventions. The alternative regime should be judged relative to the status quo. I recommend Richard Seymour's 'The Twittering Machine' on the nature of those intentional interventions; cf. review: https://www.rs21.org.uk/2019/11/16/review-the-twittering-machine/ https://www.rs21.org.uk/2019/11/16/review-the-twittering-mac...