3 ms·
> when you consider that no one is "forcing" people to watch content that they don't like, they simply ignore it Throwing something into the recommendation alg
by dewey 6y ago
> when you consider that no one is "forcing" people to watch content that they don't like, they simply ignore it
Throwing something into the recommendation algorithm over periods of time or showing you ads will likely have an influence on you even if you wouldn't usually look at the content or search for it.
Facebook itself already experimented with that in the early days of social media: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/06/everything-we-know-about-facebooks-secret-mood-manipulation-experiment/373648/ https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/06/every...
- zo1 6y agoOne can block the channels on a per-user basis. And you can "personalize" recommendations to users to exclude channels or videos that are similar to ones they've previously blocked/excluded. Heck you can have curated block-lists that people can subscribe to. You can allow users to disable any non-subscription feed mechanisms so that the only way to find content is through search or other discovery mechanisms that may be external to the platform. There are so many different ways to solve the user-experience issue without deplatforming. The more you peel back the superficial layers, the more you find that this is just about control as we "don't want to let people make their own opinions by finding content that we don't like". Edit. Grammar.
- cycloptic 6y agoBlocklists don't solve the problem of dishonest or scammy ads. If they did we would have solved the spam problem by now. Someone still has to review all that stuff manually.