7 ms·

Respectfully, these examples- radio and TV aren't even in the same league as the manipulation and engagement that comes from the algorithmic feedback loop that

Respectfully, these examples- radio and TV aren't even in the same league as the manipulation and engagement that comes from the algorithmic feedback loop that backs these services. The comparison is dangerously dismissive.

micromacrofoot 5y ago
Right, I think addiction is probably the bigger story rather than attention.
- batch12 5y ago
  Yes, though these are linked. Attention is the goal while addiction is the means.
- freeflight 5y ago
  I'm not sure how much that actually changes about the discussion, for the better. If this is an addiction, then it will be one that's gonna be very difficult to break for most people. In most places it's nowadays near impossible to go about your day without some kind of online activity or interaction. Especially as during this pandemic a lot of "in person" alternatives for it have been phased out of use. So in practice the addicts are regularly forced to interact with their source of addiction. How are we supposed to fix that?
  - micromacrofoot 5y ago
    More transparency around algorithmically prioritized newsfeeds seem like an obvious place to start. According to what little insight we have they’re mostly prioritized for “engagement” which in some cases has intentionally come at the cost of people’s moods (according facebook’s own internal reporting). Large companies have psychology/sociology experts working on this stuff in favor of the respective companies, but any consumer advocacy on the same level is hampered by lack of access and lack of funding.
    - Nextgrid 5y ago
      More liability is the answer. Social media went from a communications platform where people could post content and subscribe to receive other people's content (in a chronological feed) into something where the social platform decides what content you receive (via the algorithmic feed) in order to benefit the platform by maximizing engagement and ad views. Conventional newspapers did the same for decades and have been bound by some laws and regulations as a publisher. Social media should be bound by the same laws since they've long ago switched from a "neutral communications platform" model.
      - fennecfoxen 5y ago
        > Conventional newspapers did the same for decades and have been bound by some laws and regulations as a publisher Oh yes, the notorious No Law, made by Congress — as directed in the First Amendment.
Nathanba 5y ago
Surely TV and radio also have algorithms behind them determining how to increase viewership. Facebook and Instagram do the same but in realtime with more knobs to turn. I personally don't quite understand how somebody can get addicted to social media but I understand video games and I would support some kind of government bureau that determines the addictiveness of a game and puts a label on it. For example games that are story driven, you play them for 15h and then you're done and there is no cliffhanger should get a very low addiction rating. You play them, you finish them, you liked it and then you can stop with no problem. Then the addiction rating should get higher if there is more endless endgame content, more multiplayer content, boxes to purchase, etc. You get the idea, if the industry is so determined to find the bliss point of a game/food item then the governments need to evolve with that challenge.
- batch12 5y ago
  Yes absolutely TV and radio use algorithms to boost engagement. These are still dangerous, just less. The difference is the speed at which these sources collect and use information and the volume of data collected. It isn't just that these new mediums have more control, but that they can exercise the control in real-time. With your video game idea, what's the difference between this and other software? Some social media seems like the game that never ends.
- V-2 5y ago
  Chess is very addictive, and certainly endless. Same with cardgames. I'm sure your government bureau would quite grow fast, coming up with ever more warning labels.
  - zentropia 5y ago
    Do we have an epidemic of chess?
    - philipswood 5y ago
      In the late 18-hundreds Chess was considered a bit of an undesirable epidenic. Check out this gizmodo article: https://gizmodo.com/chess-was-once-deemed-a-menace-to-society-1588675766 https://gizmodo.com/chess-was-once-deemed-a-menace-to-societ...
Aromasin 5y ago
As far as I've read, based on research around attention and focus behaviors, the context switching element of it is the most dangerous part in terms of developing ADHD type behaviors, and I agree that TV and radio doesn't even scratch the amount of switching that happens with modern social media. TikTok, Instagram, Facebook, Reddit, etc. All of them make you switch context every 30 seconds or less, often for hours on end. I think we're making the mistake of looking at these older technologies like TV and radio, thinking "we survived that, we'll survive this" and that is incredibly dangerous. Dr Andrew Huberman, professor of neurobiology and ophthalmology at Stanford, does some excellent lecture-like podcasts on the subject that are well worth a listen.
- daniel-cussen 5y ago
  Documents, radio, television, internet, social media. Baby steps.
  - __MatrixMan__ 5y ago
    Towards what? The loss of individual agency and the creation of some kind of collective organism? Maybe there will be a time for that, but I'm thinking that if we let it happen now, that organism will be an idiot.
- Nextgrid 5y ago
  Conventional broadcast media such as TV or radio can't get real-time feedback on the user's attention/preferences/behavior nor can it deliver uniquely-personalized content to each individual user. The "best" it could do is provide an average form of content that is likely to be appealing to the majority of their user base and would be subject to scrutiny as everyone can see what is broadcast. In contrast, modern media not only knows much more about the user and their behavior but can fine-tune each individual expereince in real-time to maximize view time and "engagement" per-user without any oversight as it is impossible for a watchdog to see what each individual user is presented with. This is much more dangerous as the content can be fine-tuned based on each user's individual profile and weaknesses/addictions.
moonchrome 5y ago
All this talk about "algorithmic feedback loops" is overselling the quality of said algos (eg. I get more interesting suggestions when I open YT incognito then I do when I'm signed in, I have to scroll through a bunch of stuff I have 0 interest on FB when I open it, etc.) and their importance. It's completely missing the actual attention grabbing factor here - there's a huge amount of content for consumption on demand in those networks. Unlike TV or radio where at most you could have 100s of channels simultaneously available, there's billions of articles/videos/posts/songs/articles/etc. available with a few clicks. At best algos get you there faster.
- redmaverickclon 5y ago
  I am not sure. This is just a data point of 1. I used to browse Instagram casually. Like, once is a blue moon. I would see updates from my network and spend a few mins here and there. This was probably like over year or two back. (not 100% sure) And then a few months back I just could not take my eyes off of Instagram reels. This feature wasn't there before I think. I was just completely hooked. It was pretty interesting. I had to delete my instagram off of my phone. They definitely are figuring out the formula to retain people's attention. Again, this is just a data point of one.
  - moonchrome 5y ago
    >And then a few months back I just could not take my eyes off of Instagram reels. This feature wasn't there before I think. I was just completely hooked. It was pretty interesting. I had to delete my instagram off of my phone. Sounds like they started showing you different kind of content. I never got into Instagram because I'm just not into the kind of content that gets published there. Not arguing that content presentation isn't a factor here, but I would argue it's the content that's addicting and even if you remove the suggestion algorithms and just did social sharing/recommendations you'd still end up with similar results - viral stuff got shared in chats/groups/mail chains/etc. now it gets served up to your feed directly. Not saying suggestion algorithms don't improve the experience if they work, but I wouldn't really attribute that much value to them, ultimately we have an industry of influencers trying to create content that will grab your attention.
jimbokun 5y ago
And TV was already considered a problem as it took up more and more of people's day. The modern web is the fentanyl version of TV in terms of addictiveness.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
ddxxdd 5y ago
On the other hand, TV, radio, the printing press, and rock-and-roll music have all been called a "monumental change", "unlike anything before it", in the past. An "unprecedented new thing" comes around every generation, and every time, there are fancy arguments touted about why this unprecedented new thing is unlike all the other "unprecedented new things" in the past. For what it's worth, I'll say this: when I watch TV or a movie, it appears that the producers, writers, and set designers work hard to make sure that my attention is captured during every moment of the theatrical event. Movie studios perform A/B testing to see what kind of cinematic techniques are more engaging to audiences. Music studios use computer software to mathematically model what kind of music the masses will enjoy. Newspapers engage in yellow journalism. All I am pleading for is a higher standard of proof and some contrarianism when people claim that whatever modern thing nowadays is unprecedented even among all the other unprecedented things of the past.

micromacrofoot 5y ago

Right, I think addiction is probably the bigger story rather than attention.

batch12 5y ago
Yes, though these are linked. Attention is the goal while addiction is the means.
freeflight 5y ago
I'm not sure how much that actually changes about the discussion, for the better. If this is an addiction, then it will be one that's gonna be very difficult to break for most people. In most places it's nowadays near impossible to go about your day without some kind of online activity or interaction. Especially as during this pandemic a lot of "in person" alternatives for it have been phased out of use. So in practice the addicts are regularly forced to interact with their source of addiction. How are we supposed to fix that?
- micromacrofoot 5y ago
  More transparency around algorithmically prioritized newsfeeds seem like an obvious place to start. According to what little insight we have they’re mostly prioritized for “engagement” which in some cases has intentionally come at the cost of people’s moods (according facebook’s own internal reporting). Large companies have psychology/sociology experts working on this stuff in favor of the respective companies, but any consumer advocacy on the same level is hampered by lack of access and lack of funding.
  - Nextgrid 5y ago
    More liability is the answer. Social media went from a communications platform where people could post content and subscribe to receive other people's content (in a chronological feed) into something where the social platform decides what content you receive (via the algorithmic feed) in order to benefit the platform by maximizing engagement and ad views. Conventional newspapers did the same for decades and have been bound by some laws and regulations as a publisher. Social media should be bound by the same laws since they've long ago switched from a "neutral communications platform" model.
    - fennecfoxen 5y ago
      > Conventional newspapers did the same for decades and have been bound by some laws and regulations as a publisher Oh yes, the notorious No Law, made by Congress — as directed in the First Amendment.

Nathanba 5y ago

Surely TV and radio also have algorithms behind them determining how to increase viewership. Facebook and Instagram do the same but in realtime with more knobs to turn. I personally don't quite understand how somebody can get addicted to social media but I understand video games and I would support some kind of government bureau that determines the addictiveness of a game and puts a label on it. For example games that are story driven, you play them for 15h and then you're done and there is no cliffhanger should get a very low addiction rating. You play them, you finish them, you liked it and then you can stop with no problem. Then the addiction rating should get higher if there is more endless endgame content, more multiplayer content, boxes to purchase, etc. You get the idea, if the industry is so determined to find the bliss point of a game/food item then the governments need to evolve with that challenge.

batch12 5y ago
Yes absolutely TV and radio use algorithms to boost engagement. These are still dangerous, just less. The difference is the speed at which these sources collect and use information and the volume of data collected. It isn't just that these new mediums have more control, but that they can exercise the control in real-time. With your video game idea, what's the difference between this and other software? Some social media seems like the game that never ends.
V-2 5y ago
Chess is very addictive, and certainly endless. Same with cardgames. I'm sure your government bureau would quite grow fast, coming up with ever more warning labels.
- zentropia 5y ago
  Do we have an epidemic of chess?
  - philipswood 5y ago
    In the late 18-hundreds Chess was considered a bit of an undesirable epidenic. Check out this gizmodo article: https://gizmodo.com/chess-was-once-deemed-a-menace-to-society-1588675766 https://gizmodo.com/chess-was-once-deemed-a-menace-to-societ...

Aromasin 5y ago

As far as I've read, based on research around attention and focus behaviors, the context switching element of it is the most dangerous part in terms of developing ADHD type behaviors, and I agree that TV and radio doesn't even scratch the amount of switching that happens with modern social media. TikTok, Instagram, Facebook, Reddit, etc. All of them make you switch context every 30 seconds or less, often for hours on end. I think we're making the mistake of looking at these older technologies like TV and radio, thinking "we survived that, we'll survive this" and that is incredibly dangerous. Dr Andrew Huberman, professor of neurobiology and ophthalmology at Stanford, does some excellent lecture-like podcasts on the subject that are well worth a listen.

daniel-cussen 5y ago
Documents, radio, television, internet, social media. Baby steps.
- __MatrixMan__ 5y ago
  Towards what? The loss of individual agency and the creation of some kind of collective organism? Maybe there will be a time for that, but I'm thinking that if we let it happen now, that organism will be an idiot.
Nextgrid 5y ago
Conventional broadcast media such as TV or radio can't get real-time feedback on the user's attention/preferences/behavior nor can it deliver uniquely-personalized content to each individual user. The "best" it could do is provide an average form of content that is likely to be appealing to the majority of their user base and would be subject to scrutiny as everyone can see what is broadcast. In contrast, modern media not only knows much more about the user and their behavior but can fine-tune each individual expereince in real-time to maximize view time and "engagement" per-user without any oversight as it is impossible for a watchdog to see what each individual user is presented with. This is much more dangerous as the content can be fine-tuned based on each user's individual profile and weaknesses/addictions.

moonchrome 5y ago

All this talk about "algorithmic feedback loops" is overselling the quality of said algos (eg. I get more interesting suggestions when I open YT incognito then I do when I'm signed in, I have to scroll through a bunch of stuff I have 0 interest on FB when I open it, etc.) and their importance. It's completely missing the actual attention grabbing factor here - there's a huge amount of content for consumption on demand in those networks. Unlike TV or radio where at most you could have 100s of channels simultaneously available, there's billions of articles/videos/posts/songs/articles/etc. available with a few clicks. At best algos get you there faster.

redmaverickclon 5y ago
I am not sure. This is just a data point of 1. I used to browse Instagram casually. Like, once is a blue moon. I would see updates from my network and spend a few mins here and there. This was probably like over year or two back. (not 100% sure) And then a few months back I just could not take my eyes off of Instagram reels. This feature wasn't there before I think. I was just completely hooked. It was pretty interesting. I had to delete my instagram off of my phone. They definitely are figuring out the formula to retain people's attention. Again, this is just a data point of one.
- moonchrome 5y ago
  >And then a few months back I just could not take my eyes off of Instagram reels. This feature wasn't there before I think. I was just completely hooked. It was pretty interesting. I had to delete my instagram off of my phone. Sounds like they started showing you different kind of content. I never got into Instagram because I'm just not into the kind of content that gets published there. Not arguing that content presentation isn't a factor here, but I would argue it's the content that's addicting and even if you remove the suggestion algorithms and just did social sharing/recommendations you'd still end up with similar results - viral stuff got shared in chats/groups/mail chains/etc. now it gets served up to your feed directly. Not saying suggestion algorithms don't improve the experience if they work, but I wouldn't really attribute that much value to them, ultimately we have an industry of influencers trying to create content that will grab your attention.

jimbokun 5y ago

And TV was already considered a problem as it took up more and more of people's day. The modern web is the fentanyl version of TV in terms of addictiveness.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

ddxxdd 5y ago

On the other hand, TV, radio, the printing press, and rock-and-roll music have all been called a "monumental change", "unlike anything before it", in the past. An "unprecedented new thing" comes around every generation, and every time, there are fancy arguments touted about why this unprecedented new thing is unlike all the other "unprecedented new things" in the past. For what it's worth, I'll say this: when I watch TV or a movie, it appears that the producers, writers, and set designers work hard to make sure that my attention is captured during every moment of the theatrical event. Movie studios perform A/B testing to see what kind of cinematic techniques are more engaging to audiences. Music studios use computer software to mathematically model what kind of music the masses will enjoy. Newspapers engage in yellow journalism. All I am pleading for is a higher standard of proof and some contrarianism when people claim that whatever modern thing nowadays is unprecedented even among all the other unprecedented things of the past.