37 ms·

Do you think we are observing a symptom (unbridled speech amplification) of the disease (monetization of algorithmically targeted content), so to speak? Do you

by tspike 6y ago

Do you think we are observing a symptom (unbridled speech amplification) of the disease (monetization of algorithmically targeted content), so to speak? Do you think that if we somehow broke this monetization model, that companies like Twitter, Facebook and Google would cease to be the behemoths they are, and the amplification mechanism might go away?

shrimpx 6y ago
I definitely think the current outrage around "Big Tech censoring free speech" is a downstream effect of these companies curating feeds to maximize ad revenue. If these platforms presented the content without interpreting and curating it for profit, they could at least take the stronger stance of being a platform instead of a speech curation/distribution/amplification system. For example if Signal was externally pressured to take down speech based on its content, they would be like "We don't have that ability." But in the case of Twitter and FB, that ability and practice is at the very core of their business model.
cudgy 6y ago
Yes. Imagine if the telecoms could play ads before, after, and during your conversations on your phone(s)? Why do we accept it from big tech social media?
- seanp2k2 6y ago
  Strong network effects + capitalism. They found a good way to make lots of money, which allowed them to pay lots of skilled people to spend their time getting more people into the system and looking at ads. The problem, IMO, is that most users don’t understand how social media works from a business perspective. Advertising companies put a lot of effort into not being known as advertising companies. Another fun thought experiment: consider who runs political ads, especially local advertisers (highway billboards etc) and what speech they’re willing to accept. Consider Comcast / cable networks and what speech they’re willing to accept. Who are their customers, how are they making money, and how does that affect what speech they are willing to accept on their platforms.
  - cudgy 6y ago
    “ Advertising companies put a lot of effort into not being known as advertising companies.” That says a great deal doesn’t it? They are too ashamed and know it is an immoral business.

by tspike 6y ago

shrimpx 6y ago

I definitely think the current outrage around "Big Tech censoring free speech" is a downstream effect of these companies curating feeds to maximize ad revenue. If these platforms presented the content without interpreting and curating it for profit, they could at least take the stronger stance of being a platform instead of a speech curation/distribution/amplification system. For example if Signal was externally pressured to take down speech based on its content, they would be like "We don't have that ability." But in the case of Twitter and FB, that ability and practice is at the very core of their business model.

cudgy 6y ago

Yes. Imagine if the telecoms could play ads before, after, and during your conversations on your phone(s)? Why do we accept it from big tech social media?

seanp2k2 6y ago
Strong network effects + capitalism. They found a good way to make lots of money, which allowed them to pay lots of skilled people to spend their time getting more people into the system and looking at ads. The problem, IMO, is that most users don’t understand how social media works from a business perspective. Advertising companies put a lot of effort into not being known as advertising companies. Another fun thought experiment: consider who runs political ads, especially local advertisers (highway billboards etc) and what speech they’re willing to accept. Consider Comcast / cable networks and what speech they’re willing to accept. Who are their customers, how are they making money, and how does that affect what speech they are willing to accept on their platforms.
- cudgy 6y ago
  “ Advertising companies put a lot of effort into not being known as advertising companies.” That says a great deal doesn’t it? They are too ashamed and know it is an immoral business.