3 ms·
Facebook can tune the algorithm to stop polarizing viewpoints. YouTube can better vet the video content that gets posted, (they find porn with eerie accuracy, b
by Olreich 6y ago
Facebook can tune the algorithm to stop polarizing viewpoints. YouTube can better vet the video content that gets posted, (they find porn with eerie accuracy, but can’t identify anything else that might not be good to spread?). Instagram can promote positivity about all parts of life instead of idolization of beauty and riches. Twitter can ban someone who constantly breaks the terms of service, instead of making them a specific loophole.
None of these platforms are going to improve though. The money that they make is now closely entwined with what started out as unintended consequences and those consequences are well known. And that just makes them intended consequences.
The author shut their service down when they realized the harm it was doing. They could have solved it other ways as well. Social media and other companies could fix their unintended consequences too, but aren’t likely to so long as money and engagement are the primary metrics of success of a business.
- amelius 6y agoAcademic studies in this area would help. I'm curious why we don't see more of them.
- dakial1 6y agoThere is an interesting ethics discussion here, because FB could, for example, tune their algorithms to avoid polarization by presenting users with extreme views content that wouldn't validade those views, but show them a more moderate view and bring them to a more moderate, fact based, scientifically sound and politically correct view. But would it be ethical? Who would be the one to choose what "the correct view" is? Right now FB is doing harm because it is being somewhat fair by showing people what "they want to see", so their behaviors are telling the algorithms want they want, not a third party, even if what they want is wrong/toxic.