7 ms·

The year 2020 is providing all the Big Questions we can handle. How do we stop a pandemic? Climate change driven fires the size of a continent? Reforming the po

The year 2020 is providing all the Big Questions we can handle. How do we stop a pandemic? Climate change driven fires the size of a continent? Reforming the police to stop racial violence? Fighting bots and trolls that threaten democracy?

glial 6y ago
That last one is easy, at least: ban ad-driven social media as a business model.
- nine_k 6y ago
  Being ad-driven is a red herring. Trolls were known to exist on totally non-commercial mailing lists. Being pseudonymous is key, but it's also the valuable part.
  - guerrilla 6y ago
    > Being pseudonymous is key, but it's also the valuable part. That does not seem to be they key on Facebook.
  - cameldrv 6y ago
    Being ad-driven is an important component because a big part of the incentive to maximize engagement is to drive ad impressions. If social media companies were compensated in some other way, the content might be different.
  - glial 6y ago
    There will always be trolls. What the ads fund are armies of cognitive scientists making you addicted in the name of “engagement” aka ad revenue, consequences be damned.
- j4nt4b 6y ago
  How about banning advertisements altogether?
  - t-writescode 6y ago
    Just in case you’re not trolling: this is an impossible ask. Advertising is a vital step in the success of a business and has been going on for literal millennia.
    - violiner 6y ago
      I'm not saying you're wrong, but this type of argument where I'm asked to care about someone's business model really unconvincing in general. Someone else telling me that they need something sketchy to make money isn't persuasive - it just makes them sketchy a business or person. What I'm certain will never happen even though I think it would be great would be to ban any sort of emotional appeal whatsoever in advertising. It's just manipulative.
      - mnky9800n 6y ago
        I agree with this sentiment. However, I think advertising is necessary because what if you want to make a be candy bar? How will people know about it? The flashy wrapper you put it in? A fancy end cap store display? A billboard outside the shop you sell in? A television promotional? Is Steve jobs talking about iPhones an ad? Is bill gates talking about diseases an ad for Microsoft because they are intrinsically linked? There's no easy way to articulate what should and shouldn't be allowed.
        skanderbm 6y ago
        https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=9304&context=ylj https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?arti... This makes the argument that the need to convey product information is now fully accomplished by search engines, and advertising only adds harm / manipulation.
        glial 6y ago
        > There's no easy way to articulate what should and shouldn't be allowed. Except for - businesses with users should operate through subscription revenue, rather than 3rd party ad revenue.
- heavyset_go 6y ago
  Ban algorithmic sort that favors engagement with partners' ads, and replace it with the superior chronological sort.
- meowface 6y ago
  I detest ad-driven models and especially ad-driven social media, but this could actually make the problem worse, unless they can profit by a different means. It takes tons of expensive resources and talent to identify, stop, and prevent information/psychological warfare campaigns like these in a haystack of hundreds of millions to billions of users, especially when your adversaries may be superpowers' world-class intelligence agencies and their affiliates, or dedicated intelligence firms like Cambridge Analytica. It's hard enough for the existing companies. (And yes, I think they're genuinely trying. Or at least I think Twitter is.)
swsieber 6y ago
> Climate change driven fires the size of a continent? More like bad land management.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- nine_k 6y ago
  In Australia?
  - swsieber 6y ago
    Ah, I was thinking the west coast of the U.S. Sorry for the U.S. centric comment. From my understanding large fires in Australia probably are climate change given that they seem perennial, but I don't actually know enough to say there. The U.S. was practically begging for huge forest fires though. Thus my comment.

glial 6y ago

That last one is easy, at least: ban ad-driven social media as a business model.

nine_k 6y ago
Being ad-driven is a red herring. Trolls were known to exist on totally non-commercial mailing lists. Being pseudonymous is key, but it's also the valuable part.
- guerrilla 6y ago
  > Being pseudonymous is key, but it's also the valuable part. That does not seem to be they key on Facebook.
- cameldrv 6y ago
  Being ad-driven is an important component because a big part of the incentive to maximize engagement is to drive ad impressions. If social media companies were compensated in some other way, the content might be different.
- glial 6y ago
  There will always be trolls. What the ads fund are armies of cognitive scientists making you addicted in the name of “engagement” aka ad revenue, consequences be damned.
j4nt4b 6y ago
How about banning advertisements altogether?
- t-writescode 6y ago
  Just in case you’re not trolling: this is an impossible ask. Advertising is a vital step in the success of a business and has been going on for literal millennia.
  - violiner 6y ago
    I'm not saying you're wrong, but this type of argument where I'm asked to care about someone's business model really unconvincing in general. Someone else telling me that they need something sketchy to make money isn't persuasive - it just makes them sketchy a business or person. What I'm certain will never happen even though I think it would be great would be to ban any sort of emotional appeal whatsoever in advertising. It's just manipulative.
    - mnky9800n 6y ago
      I agree with this sentiment. However, I think advertising is necessary because what if you want to make a be candy bar? How will people know about it? The flashy wrapper you put it in? A fancy end cap store display? A billboard outside the shop you sell in? A television promotional? Is Steve jobs talking about iPhones an ad? Is bill gates talking about diseases an ad for Microsoft because they are intrinsically linked? There's no easy way to articulate what should and shouldn't be allowed.
      - skanderbm 6y ago
        https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=9304&context=ylj https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?arti... This makes the argument that the need to convey product information is now fully accomplished by search engines, and advertising only adds harm / manipulation.
      - glial 6y ago
        > There's no easy way to articulate what should and shouldn't be allowed. Except for - businesses with users should operate through subscription revenue, rather than 3rd party ad revenue.
heavyset_go 6y ago
Ban algorithmic sort that favors engagement with partners' ads, and replace it with the superior chronological sort.
meowface 6y ago
I detest ad-driven models and especially ad-driven social media, but this could actually make the problem worse, unless they can profit by a different means. It takes tons of expensive resources and talent to identify, stop, and prevent information/psychological warfare campaigns like these in a haystack of hundreds of millions to billions of users, especially when your adversaries may be superpowers' world-class intelligence agencies and their affiliates, or dedicated intelligence firms like Cambridge Analytica. It's hard enough for the existing companies. (And yes, I think they're genuinely trying. Or at least I think Twitter is.)

swsieber 6y ago

> Climate change driven fires the size of a continent? More like bad land management.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
nine_k 6y ago
In Australia?
- swsieber 6y ago
  Ah, I was thinking the west coast of the U.S. Sorry for the U.S. centric comment. From my understanding large fires in Australia probably are climate change given that they seem perennial, but I don't actually know enough to say there. The U.S. was practically begging for huge forest fires though. Thus my comment.