5 ms·

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

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...
    - Mezzie 5y ago
      Novels and bicycling were as well, particularly with women. People are weird.
      - docmars 5y ago
        God forbid we find pastimes we _like_ and stick with 'em, amiright?
        Mezzie 5y ago
        Novel reading, it was 'the womenfolk are spending their time with ~frivolous~ novels instead of caring for their children and reading the BIBLE as God intended', and bicycling was 'the womenfolk are wearing pants to cycle and traveling without a male escort! I say!' No liking things. The Protestant work ethic demands no fun. Only anger and work. Play is of SATAN.
    - drewcoo 5y ago
      A century ago in the USSR there was a comedic film about chess addiction. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0015673/?ref_=ttls_li_tt https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0015673/?ref_=ttls_li_tt
    - nomadiccoder 5y ago
      This is a fascinating argument. I like the perspective of a game like poker having greater similarity to true war than traditional war games like chess or go due to ever-increasing information. This adds another dimension to the game.
  - TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
    You're getting downvoted for a perfectly reasonable question. No we don't - because chess is a super-minority niche interest. The danger of social media is that it's social mass media - designed to be as addictive as possible to as many people as possible in as many different ways as possible using as many different techniques as possible. And that's before getting into the dangers of targeted micro-niche ads used for political ends and/or individual belief and behaviour modification. Without regulation it's an absolutely toxic medium.
    - simplestats 5y ago
      But isn't chess one subset within that network, which would indeed be covered by any law regulating addictiveness of social media? Or will you allow people to be caught up on their own "otaku" like obsession with whatever niche area, but it is simply verboten to notify them of the existence of a different niche? I also don't see how people can separate "optimizing addictiveness" (e.g. making your junk food too yummy or whatever) versus simply trying to make a better product that gives your customers what they want. The main criteria for who gets described in this way seems to be the corporate structure of the seller.
- hackerfromthefu 5y ago
  Ahh yes Chess, well known for destroying concentration .. /s
dahart 5y ago
> Surely TV and radio also have algorithms behind them determining how to increase viewership What do you mean by this? Until very recently, TVs and radios never had the ability to report feedback on what people were consuming or whether people were watching ads. There were some surveys like Nielsen ratings that involved a small sample of people installing special hardware. TVs and radios have never served personalized results to individuals, even if there were “algorithms” involved — the targeting was toward the entire population at once, not to each an every person viewing. For most of TV & radio history, the “algorithms” were people and not computers, people manually sifting through data for weeks just to see if a show was popular. It’s pretty odd to suggest that TV & radio was historically similar to what’s going on with today’s social media. Serving personalized results and gathering instant personalized viewing habits (“engagement”) is what’s fundamentally different than TV & radio, the feedback cycle fundamentally changed from a slow group feedback to a fast individual feedback, and that’s precisely why social media is more engaging and more dangerous.

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...
  - Mezzie 5y ago
    Novels and bicycling were as well, particularly with women. People are weird.
    - docmars 5y ago
      God forbid we find pastimes we _like_ and stick with 'em, amiright?
      - Mezzie 5y ago
        Novel reading, it was 'the womenfolk are spending their time with ~frivolous~ novels instead of caring for their children and reading the BIBLE as God intended', and bicycling was 'the womenfolk are wearing pants to cycle and traveling without a male escort! I say!' No liking things. The Protestant work ethic demands no fun. Only anger and work. Play is of SATAN.
  - drewcoo 5y ago
    A century ago in the USSR there was a comedic film about chess addiction. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0015673/?ref_=ttls_li_tt https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0015673/?ref_=ttls_li_tt
  - nomadiccoder 5y ago
    This is a fascinating argument. I like the perspective of a game like poker having greater similarity to true war than traditional war games like chess or go due to ever-increasing information. This adds another dimension to the game.
- TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
  You're getting downvoted for a perfectly reasonable question. No we don't - because chess is a super-minority niche interest. The danger of social media is that it's social mass media - designed to be as addictive as possible to as many people as possible in as many different ways as possible using as many different techniques as possible. And that's before getting into the dangers of targeted micro-niche ads used for political ends and/or individual belief and behaviour modification. Without regulation it's an absolutely toxic medium.
  - simplestats 5y ago
    But isn't chess one subset within that network, which would indeed be covered by any law regulating addictiveness of social media? Or will you allow people to be caught up on their own "otaku" like obsession with whatever niche area, but it is simply verboten to notify them of the existence of a different niche? I also don't see how people can separate "optimizing addictiveness" (e.g. making your junk food too yummy or whatever) versus simply trying to make a better product that gives your customers what they want. The main criteria for who gets described in this way seems to be the corporate structure of the seller.
hackerfromthefu 5y ago
Ahh yes Chess, well known for destroying concentration .. /s

dahart 5y ago

> Surely TV and radio also have algorithms behind them determining how to increase viewership What do you mean by this? Until very recently, TVs and radios never had the ability to report feedback on what people were consuming or whether people were watching ads. There were some surveys like Nielsen ratings that involved a small sample of people installing special hardware. TVs and radios have never served personalized results to individuals, even if there were “algorithms” involved — the targeting was toward the entire population at once, not to each an every person viewing. For most of TV & radio history, the “algorithms” were people and not computers, people manually sifting through data for weeks just to see if a show was popular. It’s pretty odd to suggest that TV & radio was historically similar to what’s going on with today’s social media. Serving personalized results and gathering instant personalized viewing habits (“engagement”) is what’s fundamentally different than TV & radio, the feedback cycle fundamentally changed from a slow group feedback to a fast individual feedback, and that’s precisely why social media is more engaging and more dangerous.