4 ms·
Can we stop saying it's due to "lack of contextualization" as if it's something that just oddly happened? The reason we lack context is that the world moved fr
by groby_b 6y ago
Can we stop saying it's due to "lack of contextualization" as if it's something that just oddly happened?
The reason we lack context is that the world moved from chronological feeds to "engagement" based feeds. Anything that could have served as context gets optimized out, because more clicks. We're not naturally polarized - we have created an environment that favored the more outrageous claims, slowly removing the middle ground as if it didn't exist.
What we need isn't a "contextualizion engine", it's getting rid of active efforts to decontextualize.
- andrewjl 6y ago> The reason we lack context is that the world moved from chronological feeds to "engagement" based feeds. Engagement based feeds are more profitable due to ads and also the rich profiles that can be built from aggregated engagement metrics. Unless business models drastically change, no major for-profit entity will make their feeds less engaging. The contextualization engine sounds like the neutrality doctrine that was used in the US during the mid-20th century to maintain media neutrality. Clearly, at least back then, it passed legal muster. It's worth seeing if it makes sense in a different medium. Are there better alternatives?
- groby_b 6y agoSelling cocaine is also quite profitable, and yet we opted to not allow that. That's not to say that I think legal restrictions are necessarily the right answer, but neither is "well, it's more profitable" a reason to not explore that space.