49 ms·

the printing press did not induce algorithmically amplified radicalization in order to serve more underwear ads. youtube and facebook are different.

Groxx 5y ago
It gave newspapers and magazines the ability to do exactly that, and some absolutely have. It's pretty easy to draw parallels between those and "content creators".
nickff 5y ago
>"youtube and facebook are different." Every specific case is different; you can always find some facts which differentiate one instance from the 'general case'. It is not enough to say 'this time is different', one must overcome the presumption that general rules should hold.
- dudeman13 5y ago
  I think their point is that being algorithmically induced makes the general rule not hold (which I don't agree - algorithms can be pretty damn bad at achieving what one wants). Mind you, damn thank you for saying that out loud. People on the internet sure love to jump on the wagon of pointing out the differences of instances from a general case that often aren't even relevant for the argument.
- bettysdiagnose 5y ago
  Umm they did exactly that, you just ignored that bit.
  - nickff 5y ago
    I would agree that they found the difference, but I don't think they explained how/why it overcomes the presumption that general rules should hold.
mlindner 5y ago
Youtube and facebook are no more different than the printing press was different from what lay before.
- oblio 5y ago
  Yes, they are. Almost every one has one or more mobile devices that we carry with us at all times. These devices have various messaging/social media services that due to social expectations we use to interact with friends, family. It's very, very hard to laser curate the kind of messaging you get, even if you know how to do it and are willing to do it (for example for some stuff you have to mute friends and family or otherwise block them). Newspapers were much more hit and miss. You'd have to go out and buy a newspaper, their region was at best national, etc. It's the proverbial drinking from a firehose.
  - curryst 5y ago
    In absolute terms, you're right. We interact with media more than we ever have before. The printing press was huge in relative terms, though. There was no mass media before that. The average person was unlikely to be able to read, much less to own any books. Communicating across even relatively short distances was infeasible. Most of the media they consumed was either from the church or at least regulated by the church. The printing press was huge because the normal person's sphere of possible influence grew 100x. Much in the way that we've 100x-ed again with things like YouTube. The relative increase in sphere of influence is similar, the absolutes are massively different.
    - oblio 5y ago
      True, but I think there's a saying about quantity having a quality all its own. The printing press was still running at humanly achievable speeds. The new stuff is super sonic. We can't cope with it. Plus with people living longer and longer and the natural neuroplasticity decrease that comes with age, more and more people are vulnerable. It's the kind of thing that will need to be regulated very carefully and very strongly, because that's what laws are: barriers for when the human psyche fails. Imperfect barriers, but better than nothing.

Groxx 5y ago

It gave newspapers and magazines the ability to do exactly that, and some absolutely have. It's pretty easy to draw parallels between those and "content creators".

nickff 5y ago

>"youtube and facebook are different." Every specific case is different; you can always find some facts which differentiate one instance from the 'general case'. It is not enough to say 'this time is different', one must overcome the presumption that general rules should hold.

dudeman13 5y ago
I think their point is that being algorithmically induced makes the general rule not hold (which I don't agree - algorithms can be pretty damn bad at achieving what one wants). Mind you, damn thank you for saying that out loud. People on the internet sure love to jump on the wagon of pointing out the differences of instances from a general case that often aren't even relevant for the argument.
bettysdiagnose 5y ago
Umm they did exactly that, you just ignored that bit.
- nickff 5y ago
  I would agree that they found the difference, but I don't think they explained how/why it overcomes the presumption that general rules should hold.

mlindner 5y ago

Youtube and facebook are no more different than the printing press was different from what lay before.

oblio 5y ago
Yes, they are. Almost every one has one or more mobile devices that we carry with us at all times. These devices have various messaging/social media services that due to social expectations we use to interact with friends, family. It's very, very hard to laser curate the kind of messaging you get, even if you know how to do it and are willing to do it (for example for some stuff you have to mute friends and family or otherwise block them). Newspapers were much more hit and miss. You'd have to go out and buy a newspaper, their region was at best national, etc. It's the proverbial drinking from a firehose.
- curryst 5y ago
  In absolute terms, you're right. We interact with media more than we ever have before. The printing press was huge in relative terms, though. There was no mass media before that. The average person was unlikely to be able to read, much less to own any books. Communicating across even relatively short distances was infeasible. Most of the media they consumed was either from the church or at least regulated by the church. The printing press was huge because the normal person's sphere of possible influence grew 100x. Much in the way that we've 100x-ed again with things like YouTube. The relative increase in sphere of influence is similar, the absolutes are massively different.
  - oblio 5y ago
    True, but I think there's a saying about quantity having a quality all its own. The printing press was still running at humanly achievable speeds. The new stuff is super sonic. We can't cope with it. Plus with people living longer and longer and the natural neuroplasticity decrease that comes with age, more and more people are vulnerable. It's the kind of thing that will need to be regulated very carefully and very strongly, because that's what laws are: barriers for when the human psyche fails. Imperfect barriers, but better than nothing.