7 ms·

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 m

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

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