10 ms·

All the social media sites did the research and learned that filter bubbles and outrage drives engagement more than anything else. If you tune your systems to m

All the social media sites did the research and learned that filter bubbles and outrage drives engagement more than anything else. If you tune your systems to maximize engagement and ignore the side effects, the side effects still happen, whether it’s deliberate or not

ocdtrekkie 6y ago
Indeed, Facebook and YouTube for a conservative and for a liberal are each completely different experiences. This is what blaming the algorithm gets us. It's well past time to start shutting down platforms with algorithmic content systems.
- tomjen3 6y ago
  Doesn't matter, assuming you allow people to pick who they follow. Try to look at the twitter feed of somebody who disagrees with you on a topic you find important - most the posts will be insults towards those who disagree with that persons POV.
- andrewstuart2 6y ago
  Or, hear me out, requiring certain levels of transparency from content systems that have started to augment such fundamental constructs as human-to-human communication and information sharing. There's nothing inherently wrong with automating content discovery; it's the cost function being optimized that I think we would almost all take issue with.
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    Agreed. Much of the problem I see is that people can fall down a rabbit hole of polarization without realizing it; no matter how far into the fringes the recommendation algorithm gets, it'll always feel like "oh everyone's saying this" to you as a viewer.
    - andrewstuart2 6y ago
      "What happens when you take a creature with a strong confirmation bias and feed it content specifically chosen for congruence with its particular bias?" Or rather, they knew the answer, but knew that it was the best way to maximize engagement and thus profit.
      - goguy 6y ago
        There still needs to be scope for personal responsibility though. Blaming your own behaviours on the recommendation algorithm of youtube etc is just a cop out.
        SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
        It's a copout on an individual level, but the question of who's responsible is a lot less important than the question of what we're going to do about the problem. In the absence of a plan to make millions upon millions of partisans more individually responsible, we've gotta do something about the recommendation algorithms.
        NateEag 6y ago
        A cop sees a guy crawling around under a streetlight and asks him, "Sir, what are you doing?" The man replies, "Well, officer, I dropped my car keys and I'm trying to find them." The policeman offers to help, and they search fruitlessly for ten minutes. Finally, the officer says, "Are you sure this is where you dropped them?" "Oh, no, it's not. I dropped them way over there in the parking lot." Dumbfounded, the cop says, "WHY are you looking over HERE?" "Well, the light is better over here."
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
        kaba0 6y ago
        If it is well known human behaviour, is it their personal responsibility? Especially combined with the deliberate exploitation of said behaviour by corporations?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - 8note 6y ago
    What does the transparency change though?
- polotics 6y ago
  I would so love to have sliders on Youtube to be able to adjust bias filtering, and watch the suggested videos switch sides in real time. This would probably get me to pay for the subscription.
  - duck 6y ago
    Not quite what you're looking for, but have you seen this? https://www.their.tube/ https://www.their.tube/
- zmmmmm 6y ago
  Reminds me after the GFC how some of the rules that were brought in were around banning automated real time trading systems. This was in some similar ways recognizing that automated algorithmic treatment can have extremely harmful side effects - even when it successfully executes the goals of its owner (for the stock market - once a certain threshold is breached, get me out of the market as quickly as possible - as an individual, its exactly what I want, for the overall market it is a disaster if everyone does it suddenly).
  - ocdtrekkie 6y ago
    Indeed. Generally along with blaming the algorithm, as we start using AI, the problem is the algorithm is no longer even understandable in many cases. Tech companies should be able to explain and demonstrate the logic their systems use. These algorithms should probably be public. And any system which cannot be transparently explained should be shut down.
    - dane-pgp 6y ago
      > These algorithms should probably be public. And any system which cannot be transparently explained should be shut down. But what would even count as an explanation, and what does a "public" algorithm reveal? There is no line of code that says "if (video.content == extreme) { show_to(EVERYONE) }". A lot of the dangers are possible from a simple algorithm which merely performs A/B testing on whether a certain (randomly chosen, at first) video increases the amount of time a user spends on a site. You could pass a law against A/B testing, or require companies to provide deliberately bad suggestions to make their users frustrated, but I'm not sure if that is a proportionate legislative response.
      - zmmmmm 6y ago
        > But what would even count as an explanation That sort of gets to the heart of it - saying "it's impossible to explain my algorithm because it is so complicated" no longer cuts it. It's the same as if I said to the FDA "This drug works in our testing for the indicated purpose but we have no idea if there are side effects" they aren't go to say "well, OK then, you can sell it". They'll say "come back when you have tested for all possible side effects and you can precisly define its behavior" Currently Facebook, Google et al, will measure a narrow set of metrics to define the success of their algorithms (primarily relating to $$$) and then declare victory based on empirical optimisation of those metrics. They have to show that not only does the algorithm work for its stated purpose, it doesn't have undesirable side effects. They could do massive testing to demonstrate a huge range of side effects are not present. That would be similar to and probably as expensive as drug development. But an easier way to do that is to transparently explain what the algorithms do so that side effects can be predicted. If that is actually impossible for a given algorithm - well, maybe that algorithm shouldn't be used on the public at all.
- jcfrei 6y ago
  Kind of ironic calling for shutting down platforms with algorithmic content systems on HN.
  - polka_haunts_us 6y ago
    Probably worth distinguishing between Algorithms targeting individuals and Algorithms running an entire site. Yes HN is algorithmic but you and I see the same things.
- mancerayder 6y ago
  Why can't there be a Giant Lever on the side that inputs a variable into the Magic Algorithms that you can adjust. Up down, left or right, whatever you want to call it. Why would you do this - even if people never touch it: because at least people KNOW there's a decision-tree at play here. Also there MUST be some randomization or more generalized content introduced. And I'm not talking Trending Now or Hit Songs That Just Came Out. I'm looking at you, YouTube and Facebook. Sometimes I actually want new stuff and it keeps dragging me back into a virtual rabbit hole.
  - TeMPOraL 6y ago
    Because: - There's no simple decision tree, but an ML model with countless knobs that are mostly implicit. Not worth the money to make an UI to tweak it. - The puprose of these platforms is to maximize your exposure to ads. Nothing more. Anything that detracts from it is a no-go.
- raydev 6y ago
  Both FB and YouTube's top shared posts and video are super right-leaning, though (YouTube has other massively popular videos, but they are about gaming or influencer stuff). What would the equivalent "liberal" viral posts be, and why aren't they nearly as popular as the right's?
  - mr_toad 6y ago
    My bet is that Facebook’s user demographic skews old and white, and that explains their posting. If you go somewhere like Reddit or TikTok you’ll see an entirely different story.
  - gorgoiler 6y ago
    Elsewhere in this thread the point is made that the opposite of a viral conservative video isn’t a viral liberal video. It’s either a moderate video, or no video at all. (This might be the very point you are making, rhetorically?)
slg 6y ago
Most media companies under capitalism end up acting like a paperclip maximizing AI[1]. They will eat the entire planet to get a few more eyeballs because no one taught them not to. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_convergence#Paperclip_maximizer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_convergence#Paper...
- qart 6y ago
  In contrast to what? Under communism, anyone who opposes the state narrative is disappeared.
  - slg 6y ago
    It doesn't sound like you want to engage in this discussion in good faith if you are treating it as a binary choice between capitalism and communism. Any radical extreme is going to bad. EDIT: My views largely align with what jandrese said here[1]. [1] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25662487 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25662487
- jandrese 6y ago
  In communism anyone who opposes the state is disappeared. In capitalism anyone who opposes the corporation is disappeared. You end up needing a mix of both. An independent news media with an explicit obligation to the truth, one that they can get in trouble for violating. We had that obligation for a long time through the middle of the 20th century. News organizations were well regarded even if they didn't always make the right calls they tried their best. But then Rhupert Murdock realized that you could simply pretend to be one of those respected parties and lie to the viewers constantly and there would be no consequences. The obligation to the truth turned out to be a gentleman's agreement and there were no truth police breaking down your door when you told lies. That's when we discovered that the media is like the Prisoner's Dilemma. Fox news discovered that as long as everybody else was beholden to the facts they could lie repeatedly and constantly win the game. They've only fallen from the very tippy top of the ratings in recent years as other news organizations like OAN have discovered that the bigger the lie the bigger the ratings. Fast forward to today and respect for the independent media (the all important 4th branch of government) is at an all time low and we have completely indoctrinated delusional people storming the Capitol building.
hombre_fatal 6y ago
We blame algorithms and optimization a lot here but that analysis always glosses over the fact that people pick their own sources and form their own bubbles. Everyone’s Youtube subscriptions are an echo chamber of views they mostly agree with because people only click subscribe on such channels. A recommendation engine working perfectly is going to show you lateral channels that might be more or less extreme of the last one. But that’s not the root of the problem.
- zepto 6y ago
  This really isn’t true. My (logged out) YouTube feed has mostly cooking shows, programming videos, stuff about crafts and watchmaking etc, because those are mostly what I like to watch. I’m also interested in guns. The moment I watch a gun video, I immediately get shown Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson, and The Blaze instead of all the cooking videos etc. And yet none of the gun videos I watch are remotely political. They are exclusively about sports and history, and don’t even talk about gun politics, let alone politics in general.
  - throwaway0a5e 6y ago
    I watch lots of videos on guns, cars, metalworking and history with the former two mostly geared toward history and manufacturing. I never see (amateur) political talking heads recommended. It's all trash pop-history talking heads, semi-trash documentaries and low brow entertainment related to cars and guns (e.g. demo ranch and whistlin diesel). I recently (like yesterday) watched a semi-political talking head discuss the economics of OnlyFans after a friend linked to that particular person's analysis so it'll be interesting to see if the algo tries to drag my content toward more talking heads.
    - zepto 6y ago
      Interesting. I imagine there is more to it than just the videos. E.g. if you live in a generally pro-gun area I think they be algorithm would probably be less likely to assume that it’s worth showing you political content.
  - 6y ago
hertzrat 6y ago
Its worth noting that the companies that decided to not do this are not huge megacorps, so there is an argument to be made that anybody who isn't aggressively chasing engagement just can't get a seat at the table anymore. Am I mistaken about that? This sort of makes it a systemic problem, not necessarily a problem that a company leader can solve. Eg, not even Google+ with all its resources was able to dislodge Facebook.
- wussboy 6y ago
  Exactly. Is why we outlawed underage drinking and hard drugs. Once you get a taste you can’t say no even if you want to. The problem is not humans and human nature. The problem is that social media exploits human nature in a new way. It’s not going away without regulation, in the same way we have regulated countless other human ills.
dcolkitt 6y ago
There's no evidence that heavy social media users are in any more of a bubble or echo chamber than non-users.[1] [1] https://twitter.com/degenrolf/status/913067759612973057 https://twitter.com/degenrolf/status/913067759612973057
- hertzrat 6y ago
  Interesting if true. Do you have a non-twitter source?
  - themacguffinman 6y ago
    This is a direct link to the research paper PDF: https://snurb.info/files/2017/Echo%20Chamber.pdf https://snurb.info/files/2017/Echo%20Chamber.pdf
dillondoyle 6y ago
This is also true of TV, print, and other non-social medias - and that seems to be under commented on HN. Has existed for longer and I believe started this downhill trajectory, perhaps created the 'tinder' if you will. They too do it for the engagement/ratings. Rupert Murdoch's empire as a prime cause creating an alternate reality solely because it made his media the #1 most watched news network, print, etc. They've even argued in court themselves that any 'normal' person wouldn't take their 'news' seriously. Take Tucker Carlson's early videos as another example of this gross negligence; he's an actor saying what gets views no matter his actual beliefs are.
- intended 6y ago
  Absolutely. And making that distinction helps highlight that there are factors in how information is shaped and transmitted through networks of people that results in these outcomes.
  - dillondoyle 6y ago
    Especially financial factors... It's an incentive when human nature seems to prefer the untrue/insane.

ocdtrekkie 6y ago

Indeed, Facebook and YouTube for a conservative and for a liberal are each completely different experiences. This is what blaming the algorithm gets us. It's well past time to start shutting down platforms with algorithmic content systems.

tomjen3 6y ago
Doesn't matter, assuming you allow people to pick who they follow. Try to look at the twitter feed of somebody who disagrees with you on a topic you find important - most the posts will be insults towards those who disagree with that persons POV.
andrewstuart2 6y ago
Or, hear me out, requiring certain levels of transparency from content systems that have started to augment such fundamental constructs as human-to-human communication and information sharing. There's nothing inherently wrong with automating content discovery; it's the cost function being optimized that I think we would almost all take issue with.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  Agreed. Much of the problem I see is that people can fall down a rabbit hole of polarization without realizing it; no matter how far into the fringes the recommendation algorithm gets, it'll always feel like "oh everyone's saying this" to you as a viewer.
  - andrewstuart2 6y ago
    "What happens when you take a creature with a strong confirmation bias and feed it content specifically chosen for congruence with its particular bias?" Or rather, they knew the answer, but knew that it was the best way to maximize engagement and thus profit.
    - goguy 6y ago
      There still needs to be scope for personal responsibility though. Blaming your own behaviours on the recommendation algorithm of youtube etc is just a cop out.
      - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
        It's a copout on an individual level, but the question of who's responsible is a lot less important than the question of what we're going to do about the problem. In the absence of a plan to make millions upon millions of partisans more individually responsible, we've gotta do something about the recommendation algorithms.
        NateEag 6y ago
        A cop sees a guy crawling around under a streetlight and asks him, "Sir, what are you doing?" The man replies, "Well, officer, I dropped my car keys and I'm trying to find them." The policeman offers to help, and they search fruitlessly for ten minutes. Finally, the officer says, "Are you sure this is where you dropped them?" "Oh, no, it's not. I dropped them way over there in the parking lot." Dumbfounded, the cop says, "WHY are you looking over HERE?" "Well, the light is better over here."
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - kaba0 6y ago
        If it is well known human behaviour, is it their personal responsibility? Especially combined with the deliberate exploitation of said behaviour by corporations?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- 8note 6y ago
  What does the transparency change though?
polotics 6y ago
I would so love to have sliders on Youtube to be able to adjust bias filtering, and watch the suggested videos switch sides in real time. This would probably get me to pay for the subscription.
- duck 6y ago
  Not quite what you're looking for, but have you seen this? https://www.their.tube/ https://www.their.tube/
zmmmmm 6y ago
Reminds me after the GFC how some of the rules that were brought in were around banning automated real time trading systems. This was in some similar ways recognizing that automated algorithmic treatment can have extremely harmful side effects - even when it successfully executes the goals of its owner (for the stock market - once a certain threshold is breached, get me out of the market as quickly as possible - as an individual, its exactly what I want, for the overall market it is a disaster if everyone does it suddenly).
- ocdtrekkie 6y ago
  Indeed. Generally along with blaming the algorithm, as we start using AI, the problem is the algorithm is no longer even understandable in many cases. Tech companies should be able to explain and demonstrate the logic their systems use. These algorithms should probably be public. And any system which cannot be transparently explained should be shut down.
  - dane-pgp 6y ago
    > These algorithms should probably be public. And any system which cannot be transparently explained should be shut down. But what would even count as an explanation, and what does a "public" algorithm reveal? There is no line of code that says "if (video.content == extreme) { show_to(EVERYONE) }". A lot of the dangers are possible from a simple algorithm which merely performs A/B testing on whether a certain (randomly chosen, at first) video increases the amount of time a user spends on a site. You could pass a law against A/B testing, or require companies to provide deliberately bad suggestions to make their users frustrated, but I'm not sure if that is a proportionate legislative response.
    - zmmmmm 6y ago
      > But what would even count as an explanation That sort of gets to the heart of it - saying "it's impossible to explain my algorithm because it is so complicated" no longer cuts it. It's the same as if I said to the FDA "This drug works in our testing for the indicated purpose but we have no idea if there are side effects" they aren't go to say "well, OK then, you can sell it". They'll say "come back when you have tested for all possible side effects and you can precisly define its behavior" Currently Facebook, Google et al, will measure a narrow set of metrics to define the success of their algorithms (primarily relating to $$$) and then declare victory based on empirical optimisation of those metrics. They have to show that not only does the algorithm work for its stated purpose, it doesn't have undesirable side effects. They could do massive testing to demonstrate a huge range of side effects are not present. That would be similar to and probably as expensive as drug development. But an easier way to do that is to transparently explain what the algorithms do so that side effects can be predicted. If that is actually impossible for a given algorithm - well, maybe that algorithm shouldn't be used on the public at all.
jcfrei 6y ago
Kind of ironic calling for shutting down platforms with algorithmic content systems on HN.
- polka_haunts_us 6y ago
  Probably worth distinguishing between Algorithms targeting individuals and Algorithms running an entire site. Yes HN is algorithmic but you and I see the same things.
mancerayder 6y ago
Why can't there be a Giant Lever on the side that inputs a variable into the Magic Algorithms that you can adjust. Up down, left or right, whatever you want to call it. Why would you do this - even if people never touch it: because at least people KNOW there's a decision-tree at play here. Also there MUST be some randomization or more generalized content introduced. And I'm not talking Trending Now or Hit Songs That Just Came Out. I'm looking at you, YouTube and Facebook. Sometimes I actually want new stuff and it keeps dragging me back into a virtual rabbit hole.
- TeMPOraL 6y ago
  Because: - There's no simple decision tree, but an ML model with countless knobs that are mostly implicit. Not worth the money to make an UI to tweak it. - The puprose of these platforms is to maximize your exposure to ads. Nothing more. Anything that detracts from it is a no-go.
raydev 6y ago
Both FB and YouTube's top shared posts and video are super right-leaning, though (YouTube has other massively popular videos, but they are about gaming or influencer stuff). What would the equivalent "liberal" viral posts be, and why aren't they nearly as popular as the right's?
- mr_toad 6y ago
  My bet is that Facebook’s user demographic skews old and white, and that explains their posting. If you go somewhere like Reddit or TikTok you’ll see an entirely different story.
- gorgoiler 6y ago
  Elsewhere in this thread the point is made that the opposite of a viral conservative video isn’t a viral liberal video. It’s either a moderate video, or no video at all. (This might be the very point you are making, rhetorically?)

slg 6y ago

Most media companies under capitalism end up acting like a paperclip maximizing AI[1]. They will eat the entire planet to get a few more eyeballs because no one taught them not to. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_convergence#Paperclip_maximizer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_convergence#Paper...

qart 6y ago
In contrast to what? Under communism, anyone who opposes the state narrative is disappeared.
- slg 6y ago
  It doesn't sound like you want to engage in this discussion in good faith if you are treating it as a binary choice between capitalism and communism. Any radical extreme is going to bad. EDIT: My views largely align with what jandrese said here[1]. [1] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25662487 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25662487
jandrese 6y ago
In communism anyone who opposes the state is disappeared. In capitalism anyone who opposes the corporation is disappeared. You end up needing a mix of both. An independent news media with an explicit obligation to the truth, one that they can get in trouble for violating. We had that obligation for a long time through the middle of the 20th century. News organizations were well regarded even if they didn't always make the right calls they tried their best. But then Rhupert Murdock realized that you could simply pretend to be one of those respected parties and lie to the viewers constantly and there would be no consequences. The obligation to the truth turned out to be a gentleman's agreement and there were no truth police breaking down your door when you told lies. That's when we discovered that the media is like the Prisoner's Dilemma. Fox news discovered that as long as everybody else was beholden to the facts they could lie repeatedly and constantly win the game. They've only fallen from the very tippy top of the ratings in recent years as other news organizations like OAN have discovered that the bigger the lie the bigger the ratings. Fast forward to today and respect for the independent media (the all important 4th branch of government) is at an all time low and we have completely indoctrinated delusional people storming the Capitol building.

hombre_fatal 6y ago

We blame algorithms and optimization a lot here but that analysis always glosses over the fact that people pick their own sources and form their own bubbles. Everyone’s Youtube subscriptions are an echo chamber of views they mostly agree with because people only click subscribe on such channels. A recommendation engine working perfectly is going to show you lateral channels that might be more or less extreme of the last one. But that’s not the root of the problem.

zepto 6y ago
This really isn’t true. My (logged out) YouTube feed has mostly cooking shows, programming videos, stuff about crafts and watchmaking etc, because those are mostly what I like to watch. I’m also interested in guns. The moment I watch a gun video, I immediately get shown Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson, and The Blaze instead of all the cooking videos etc. And yet none of the gun videos I watch are remotely political. They are exclusively about sports and history, and don’t even talk about gun politics, let alone politics in general.
- throwaway0a5e 6y ago
  I watch lots of videos on guns, cars, metalworking and history with the former two mostly geared toward history and manufacturing. I never see (amateur) political talking heads recommended. It's all trash pop-history talking heads, semi-trash documentaries and low brow entertainment related to cars and guns (e.g. demo ranch and whistlin diesel). I recently (like yesterday) watched a semi-political talking head discuss the economics of OnlyFans after a friend linked to that particular person's analysis so it'll be interesting to see if the algo tries to drag my content toward more talking heads.
  - zepto 6y ago
    Interesting. I imagine there is more to it than just the videos. E.g. if you live in a generally pro-gun area I think they be algorithm would probably be less likely to assume that it’s worth showing you political content.
- 6y ago

hertzrat 6y ago

Its worth noting that the companies that decided to not do this are not huge megacorps, so there is an argument to be made that anybody who isn't aggressively chasing engagement just can't get a seat at the table anymore. Am I mistaken about that? This sort of makes it a systemic problem, not necessarily a problem that a company leader can solve. Eg, not even Google+ with all its resources was able to dislodge Facebook.

wussboy 6y ago
Exactly. Is why we outlawed underage drinking and hard drugs. Once you get a taste you can’t say no even if you want to. The problem is not humans and human nature. The problem is that social media exploits human nature in a new way. It’s not going away without regulation, in the same way we have regulated countless other human ills.

dcolkitt 6y ago

There's no evidence that heavy social media users are in any more of a bubble or echo chamber than non-users.[1] [1] https://twitter.com/degenrolf/status/913067759612973057 https://twitter.com/degenrolf/status/913067759612973057

hertzrat 6y ago
Interesting if true. Do you have a non-twitter source?
- themacguffinman 6y ago
  This is a direct link to the research paper PDF: https://snurb.info/files/2017/Echo%20Chamber.pdf https://snurb.info/files/2017/Echo%20Chamber.pdf

dillondoyle 6y ago

This is also true of TV, print, and other non-social medias - and that seems to be under commented on HN. Has existed for longer and I believe started this downhill trajectory, perhaps created the 'tinder' if you will. They too do it for the engagement/ratings. Rupert Murdoch's empire as a prime cause creating an alternate reality solely because it made his media the #1 most watched news network, print, etc. They've even argued in court themselves that any 'normal' person wouldn't take their 'news' seriously. Take Tucker Carlson's early videos as another example of this gross negligence; he's an actor saying what gets views no matter his actual beliefs are.

intended 6y ago
Absolutely. And making that distinction helps highlight that there are factors in how information is shaped and transmitted through networks of people that results in these outcomes.
- dillondoyle 6y ago
  Especially financial factors... It's an incentive when human nature seems to prefer the untrue/insane.