4 ms·

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 t

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.

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.