4 ms·
> It seems to me that the first step is to stop letting the tech corps control your world. This sounds like the "Read the Manual" style of programming UX, vagu
by jancsika 6y ago
> It seems to me that the first step is to stop letting the tech corps control your world.
This sounds like the "Read the Manual" style of programming UX, vaguely applied to the entire U.S. population.
I offer the "F" from "RTFM" as evidence that this technique doesn't scale well.
> CBS's content policies
Inside Edition cannot construct a personalized chain of increasingly engaging and outrageous conspiratorial content, on the fly, that exploits Inside Edition's data about my blind spots in order to maximally capture my attention. Personalized rabbit-holes are a problem on Youtube, however. That, the size and scope of data collected, the scope of potential content (and lack of moderation of said content), and the speed with which the blackbox algorithm can prime users are all problems which don't (currently) exist with Inside Edition. So the comparison you make isn't apt.
Edit: clarification
- SpicyLemonZest 6y agoI don't think it needs to scale well. As I've mentioned elsewhere, the idea that you should be able to easily find arbitrary content on mainstream platforms is very new; as recently as a decade or two ago, it was well-understood that if you're interested in niche ideas you've gotta seek out niche platforms that support them. We just have to resurrect that consensus. Personalized rabbit holes are certainly a big problem, but establishing radically permissive Youtube moderation won't really do anything to fight them. It doesn't seem like a related issue.