4 ms·

"The Social Dilemma" on Netflix touches on this - in part, the algorithms that run these platforms and govern (guide?) user interaction are responsible in large

"The Social Dilemma" on Netflix touches on this - in part, the algorithms that run these platforms and govern (guide?) user interaction are responsible in large part for pitting people against each other. It's in their best interest to keep eyeballs on their respective sites as much has humanly possible.

TheKarateKid 6y ago
Yes algorithms contribute, but the media is the reason these problems go from being just an argument on social media, to an actual societal issue. Before the media started using social media as “facts” for their reporting, these arguments would just be another online “flame war.” Remember when we used those terms? Remember when online arguments remained as just that? Now, when 1000 people on Twitter try to cancel someone the media reports it as if it’s an actual popular opinion, thus amplifying the problem for better or worse.
- bobthepanda 6y ago
  There are legitimately things on social media that become much bigger and become a story in and of itself though. Breonna Taylor's case was not covered in MSM initially, and the continued pressure on it is largely due to social media self-sustaining it.
- arrosenberg 6y ago
  I think this conflates two separate, but equally damaging issues. (1) Social media sites have been optimized in the same way tobacco was, to take advantage of human chemistry to make it as addictive as possible; and (2) news companies are run for a profit, and the profits all started going to online advertisers, so the news companies had to follow. Thus things that are important on social media, become important to news companies, which becomes mainstream news. I find it tough to blame the news for this — the social media companies were making deliberate design choices and the news companies were reacting in an attempt to stay in business in a rapidly changing market.
  - dnissley 6y ago
    Don't you think it's too soon to play the blame game? Both of these groups were just following incentives (both to make money and also just survive in a competitive landscape). On top of that there's also two other groups that further complicate the picture: end users and advertisers. It's not clear to me that we need to go through the motions of trying to persecute one of these groups in particular, since the situation is already evolving. End users are starting to become wise to the ways in which they are manipulated by all three of the other groups, and not necessarily always in a conscious way -- I personally had a turning point where I was just tired of the cycle, it got boring, and I didn't even have to try to consciously cut out these things, they just kind of fell away while I spent my time elsewhere.
    - arrosenberg 6y ago
      I don't think so, no. It's wrong to equivocate between groups "following their incentives". Facebook could have chosen not pursue algorithm-based advertising as a business model. The news companies didn't have the option of ignoring Facebook (and Google) by about 2014 or 2015 (news companies also didn't conduct unregulated psychological tests or commit fraud to push a video-first model). I don't really blame Facebook for playing the game, but if you play, you also accept the consequences when society gets sick of your shit. It's hardly persecution to insist that American businesses stop doing gross harm to the American people. Your personal anecdote is largely irrelevant compared to Facebook's earnings report - lots of people still use these platforms and they will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. It's unlikely that these companies will pivot their business model in the absence of oversight. I've stopped using it too, but we absolutely should create market rules to deal with the obvious abuses that have occurred so they don't crop up again.
      - dnissley 6y ago
        Facebook could have chosen not pursue algorithm-based advertising as a business model. I think this is hugely presumptuous. Is there an alternative model they could have used? Are there companies using such alternative models? It's hardly persecution to insist that American businesses stop doing gross harm to the American people. Agreed, but it's very much not clear what the harm is. To say that it's algorithm-based advertising is not at all convincing to me, but maybe there's a good argument for that being the case that I haven't seen? What convinced you? lots of people still use these platforms and they will continue to do so for the foreseeable future Yes, but I think you underestimate end users. The shift away from supernormal stimuli of all kinds will be slow and arduous, but for whatever reason I have faith that we will do it. We're successfully doing it with smoking, and making good progress on the sugar + sedentary lifestyle front as well with all sorts of niche diets and fitness regimines popping up. Although it's still super early, I see the beginnings of a move away from this particular brand of virality based social media as well. Examples would be: the popularity of long form lecture series on youtube + online classes (masterclass is fluffy, but also points in this direction), the evolution of shared blocklists on twitter and other similar methods of "bubbling" (including the rise and rise of reddit, as well as discord), the trend of non-toxic, long-lived anonymous accounts on twitter, etc. etc. Also, and maybe I'm just being unimaginative, but what kinds of market rules would make sense here?
- rstupek 6y ago
  I think you're generous with 1000 people being the high bar for media reports. My gut says <12 is enough
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
ilyaeck 6y ago
Hardly a credible source of objective information, given that The Social Dilemma is itself a piece of media designed to trigger people into consuming and spreading it.
- ozim 6y ago
  That was my main "funny thing" about that movie. It makes those algorithm choices more dramatic than they are just to trigger people more. If you are into those things movie about "how bad big corporations are" is then served algorithmically to you by Netflix which is one of those big bad corporations.
lotu 6y ago
The problem I see a lot is, "the algorithm contributes X" implies that "getting rid of the algorithm will fix X". This is not true. For an analogy imagine a town that with an arsonist setting lots of homes on fire. It is obviously true that "storing gas in your hose contributes to houses burning down", but "getting rid of gasoline in house will not fix the fires". For clarity I consider "the algorithm" the sophisticated ordering of your follower's posts, and the recommendation of new followers. This means getting rid of "the algorithm" mostly means going back to the 00's when post where sorted by date, likes, or simple formula that combined the two. Content still went viral, and people still sorted themselves into information silos. This meant people spend more time searching for content, but I don't see any real fundamental difference that is going to result in less polarization. The underlying problem is people communicating with other people. I argue if we got rid of the internet it would not get rid of this polarization and spread of misinformation and conspiracy theories. In fact you saw many similar problems prior to the Civl War, when the fastest method of communication was a telegram. People still distributed pamphlets, formed clubs with like minded individuals, gossiped, and spread rumors and falsehoods. I think people grab on to idea "the algorithm is causes polarization", because it puts single thing, presents a specific solution (change/get rid of the algorithm), and has an specific, abstract group of people to blame the owners and employees of the big tech companies. People don't like it what the problems affecting their lives are caused by dozens of interacting forces and there is no clear simple solution, but rather a lot of work in a lot of areas. As an aside drop in disappearing manufacturing jobs and illegal immigrants. See what you get.

TheKarateKid 6y ago

Yes algorithms contribute, but the media is the reason these problems go from being just an argument on social media, to an actual societal issue. Before the media started using social media as “facts” for their reporting, these arguments would just be another online “flame war.” Remember when we used those terms? Remember when online arguments remained as just that? Now, when 1000 people on Twitter try to cancel someone the media reports it as if it’s an actual popular opinion, thus amplifying the problem for better or worse.

bobthepanda 6y ago
There are legitimately things on social media that become much bigger and become a story in and of itself though. Breonna Taylor's case was not covered in MSM initially, and the continued pressure on it is largely due to social media self-sustaining it.
arrosenberg 6y ago
I think this conflates two separate, but equally damaging issues. (1) Social media sites have been optimized in the same way tobacco was, to take advantage of human chemistry to make it as addictive as possible; and (2) news companies are run for a profit, and the profits all started going to online advertisers, so the news companies had to follow. Thus things that are important on social media, become important to news companies, which becomes mainstream news. I find it tough to blame the news for this — the social media companies were making deliberate design choices and the news companies were reacting in an attempt to stay in business in a rapidly changing market.
- dnissley 6y ago
  Don't you think it's too soon to play the blame game? Both of these groups were just following incentives (both to make money and also just survive in a competitive landscape). On top of that there's also two other groups that further complicate the picture: end users and advertisers. It's not clear to me that we need to go through the motions of trying to persecute one of these groups in particular, since the situation is already evolving. End users are starting to become wise to the ways in which they are manipulated by all three of the other groups, and not necessarily always in a conscious way -- I personally had a turning point where I was just tired of the cycle, it got boring, and I didn't even have to try to consciously cut out these things, they just kind of fell away while I spent my time elsewhere.
  - arrosenberg 6y ago
    I don't think so, no. It's wrong to equivocate between groups "following their incentives". Facebook could have chosen not pursue algorithm-based advertising as a business model. The news companies didn't have the option of ignoring Facebook (and Google) by about 2014 or 2015 (news companies also didn't conduct unregulated psychological tests or commit fraud to push a video-first model). I don't really blame Facebook for playing the game, but if you play, you also accept the consequences when society gets sick of your shit. It's hardly persecution to insist that American businesses stop doing gross harm to the American people. Your personal anecdote is largely irrelevant compared to Facebook's earnings report - lots of people still use these platforms and they will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. It's unlikely that these companies will pivot their business model in the absence of oversight. I've stopped using it too, but we absolutely should create market rules to deal with the obvious abuses that have occurred so they don't crop up again.
    - dnissley 6y ago
      Facebook could have chosen not pursue algorithm-based advertising as a business model. I think this is hugely presumptuous. Is there an alternative model they could have used? Are there companies using such alternative models? It's hardly persecution to insist that American businesses stop doing gross harm to the American people. Agreed, but it's very much not clear what the harm is. To say that it's algorithm-based advertising is not at all convincing to me, but maybe there's a good argument for that being the case that I haven't seen? What convinced you? lots of people still use these platforms and they will continue to do so for the foreseeable future Yes, but I think you underestimate end users. The shift away from supernormal stimuli of all kinds will be slow and arduous, but for whatever reason I have faith that we will do it. We're successfully doing it with smoking, and making good progress on the sugar + sedentary lifestyle front as well with all sorts of niche diets and fitness regimines popping up. Although it's still super early, I see the beginnings of a move away from this particular brand of virality based social media as well. Examples would be: the popularity of long form lecture series on youtube + online classes (masterclass is fluffy, but also points in this direction), the evolution of shared blocklists on twitter and other similar methods of "bubbling" (including the rise and rise of reddit, as well as discord), the trend of non-toxic, long-lived anonymous accounts on twitter, etc. etc. Also, and maybe I'm just being unimaginative, but what kinds of market rules would make sense here?
rstupek 6y ago
I think you're generous with 1000 people being the high bar for media reports. My gut says <12 is enough

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

ilyaeck 6y ago

Hardly a credible source of objective information, given that The Social Dilemma is itself a piece of media designed to trigger people into consuming and spreading it.

ozim 6y ago
That was my main "funny thing" about that movie. It makes those algorithm choices more dramatic than they are just to trigger people more. If you are into those things movie about "how bad big corporations are" is then served algorithmically to you by Netflix which is one of those big bad corporations.

lotu 6y ago

The problem I see a lot is, "the algorithm contributes X" implies that "getting rid of the algorithm will fix X". This is not true. For an analogy imagine a town that with an arsonist setting lots of homes on fire. It is obviously true that "storing gas in your hose contributes to houses burning down", but "getting rid of gasoline in house will not fix the fires". For clarity I consider "the algorithm" the sophisticated ordering of your follower's posts, and the recommendation of new followers. This means getting rid of "the algorithm" mostly means going back to the 00's when post where sorted by date, likes, or simple formula that combined the two. Content still went viral, and people still sorted themselves into information silos. This meant people spend more time searching for content, but I don't see any real fundamental difference that is going to result in less polarization. The underlying problem is people communicating with other people. I argue if we got rid of the internet it would not get rid of this polarization and spread of misinformation and conspiracy theories. In fact you saw many similar problems prior to the Civl War, when the fastest method of communication was a telegram. People still distributed pamphlets, formed clubs with like minded individuals, gossiped, and spread rumors and falsehoods. I think people grab on to idea "the algorithm is causes polarization", because it puts single thing, presents a specific solution (change/get rid of the algorithm), and has an specific, abstract group of people to blame the owners and employees of the big tech companies. People don't like it what the problems affecting their lives are caused by dozens of interacting forces and there is no clear simple solution, but rather a lot of work in a lot of areas. As an aside drop in disappearing manufacturing jobs and illegal immigrants. See what you get.