5 ms·

My roommate basically put it in his project for university as a similar theory to Toaster Fucker. I too have a personal similar theory where I just refer to the

by sjmm1989 5y ago

My roommate basically put it in his project for university as a similar theory to Toaster Fucker. I too have a personal similar theory where I just refer to the 'village idiot'. They all basically revolve around one truth I think. The internet doesn't radicalize people. People radicalize people. The internet is just full of people who are already radicalized in their daily life, and they are using the internet to radicalize others. Whether it be for the left, right, or even some weird alt thing. Penny Arcade even has their own comic strip theory called "G.I.F.T of the Internet". Theirs is more simplistic though in that it stipulates that the anonymity of the net is the problem insofar that it gives people a fake sense of security to be who they really are on the inside. For better or worse. Usually worse. I think all of our ideas on the matter basically resonate on the same singular issue. That people were already nuts to begin with. The internet is just making easier to identify which are fucking screwballs and ... the rest. But then that poses a new problem. Mob mentality even of righteous people is still just as toxic as the mob mentality of fucking idiots.

lazide 5y ago
I don’t think so - my impression is that it’s feed algorithms pushing the most incendiary topics to people because they get the most engagement. Nothing gets people going like someone saying something divisive or controversial after all. So pretty soon most of the feed is divisive bullshit.
- int_19h 5y ago
  Incendiary topics draw more attention, thus more likes / reshares. Feed algorithms can amplify this effect, but it's always there, unfortunately: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc
  - lazide 5y ago
    Likes and reshares are often consumed via feed like interfaces though? I get it definitely happens with folks texting friends links or sharing it via email, but the friction with those is higher and it gives time for folks to think more than the feed interface. It’s highly efficient psychological pressure/engagement and maximizing the focus towards the engaging content that is the real problem IMO. It makes something that someone could think about (potentially) and choose to stop into something they become hyper engaged with constantly and can’t turn off.
- ReactiveJelly 5y ago
  > Nothing gets people going like someone saying something divisive Shiri's Scissor: https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/10/30/sort-by-controversial/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/10/30/sort-by-controversial/
  - findingaway 5y ago
    Thank you for this.
- zuminator 5y ago
  Not only the most incendiary topics but the most incendiary people as well! So the crazy angry neighbor who AFK has two friends gets 500 followers on Twitter, and lots of "likes" on various partisan sites. That rush of approval causes the neighbor to invest even more of their time online where they feel important. This wouldn't be possible without network effects, so I agree, the algorithm can't be discounted or disambiguated from the phenomenon as a whole.
  - sjmm1989 5y ago
    Yeah, we shouldn't discount the algorithms put in place by people; but we should also keep in mind that those algorithms only operate based on inputs from people. If the outputs the algorithms are giving you are not desirable, then it is solely the fault of the people who are feeding that algorithm in the way they are, etc and so forth. Algorithms are not sentient nor have agency over the results of their actions. We however, do. This is why the human element side of things is my target. Even if the algorithms change, not much will if we don't.
    - unkulunkulu 5y ago
      Algorithms are designed, evaluated and impoved by organizations, so are not a point of blame at all. They’re not accidentally putting divisive stuff to the top, the analytics, devs and management all surely see the consequences and decide that the algos are aligned with the business .
      - lazide 5y ago
        Many Organizations generally are within some sort of competitive landscape - companies in the market, non profits with donations, city and state govts for tax base. So they all will optimize for effectiveness towards some metric to some degree, restricted by whatever fear of backlash or consequences they may have. No one is going to approve a ‘say anything as long as it bumps ratings immediately’ algorithm, but almost everyone is going to try to do at least what the top competitor seems to be doing. Which is algorithmic/ML based engagement optimization, with some kind of ‘but not the most controversial if it’s literally nazis’ type filter for things with too much political blowback (aka calls for insurrection), or legal issues (child porn). If you look, it’s literally almost everywhere now. And earlier they didn’t even have the ‘not literally nazi’s’ filter.
- bena 5y ago
  But it's still people at the end of it. The "algorithm" didn't come up with the topic, didn't write the article, didn't perform the actions. People did. People bought the ads. People promoted the content. And ultimately, people also wrote the "algorithm".
  - lazide 5y ago
    Some hyperbole, but considering the real world consequences right now maybe not as much as we’d like to believe - People are also the ones who use chemical weapons to gas their opponents in particularly nasty wars. It doesn’t mean we shouldn’t all agree to not do that, or even try to enforce that people don’t do that.
- sjmm1989 5y ago
  Not to quote taco girl too overly much; but how about both? Algorithms require input to give you output, right? So even if you are correct that badly created algoritms are to blame, we still have the people who fall for the algorithms outputs because they are feeding it the inputs. To put it simply, it all goes back to the calculator/computer quote in regard to their users. They are only as smart as the person using them. So, from that point of view; there are a lot of really dumb users on the internet.
  - lazide 5y ago
    Not quite. If 99 out of 100 users input not-BS, and 1 user inputs BS, but the algorithm picks the 1 users BS input and feeds it to the other 99 first so they get angry and yell at each other over the 1 BS input together - that is a historically unique situation. If it does it at scale for cheap, that is also a historically unique situation. If it does it without a human being directly involved in the choosing and pushing process (and feeling bad potentially!), that is also a historically unique situation. If someone sees all 100 users posts together, it’s easy to see the BS is BS. If the BS post goes to the top of the feed and is the first thing they see, and the normal posts either don’t show up, or only a few of them show up? That is a completely different experience for the consumer of the media.
    - sjmm1989 5y ago
      I feel like all of this just means that teaching proper critical thinking in schools again would solve most of this. Along with maybe an educational update for those who missed it.
      - lazide 5y ago
        While it would help a little, you’ll always have a minimum of 25% (probably more like 50%+) of folks who lack the degree of emotional self control necessary for any sort of rational learning to override the emotional response. They might feel worse about it later because they know they shouldn’t have reacted that way, but in my experience that doesn’t help as much as you’d want. Doesn’t take much to get a mob going unfortunately.
TZubiri 5y ago
You are underestimating the effect that the speed and range of message transmission have on the kinds of ideologies that people can carry.
- sjmm1989 5y ago
  Actually, I understand it quite properly. I was merely just putting into easier to understand terms for others who might need it. I for one, have no doubt that the removal of the internet from most people's lives would reduce most of these problems to a standstill for the time being due to how exactly right you are about the effect of fast and long reaching communication has. That doesn't mean that I want to remove the internet completely from everyone's lives though. I just accept that many to most people aren't capable of handling it yet. Not yet. All these theories that people have on the other hand are them trying to grasp and come to terms with the very fact I just stated. I mean look at them right now. Some of them think algorithms are fully to blame, but this kind of behavior from humans has been around for centuries and beyond now. The only difference through out time is just the speed and distance of which communication occurs. So, the internet itself is not to blame for anything. The people are, entirely and thoroughly. The internet is for the most part right now, an inanimate object with zero agency or sentient logical thought processes. For now. And here's the catch... even if it ever gains those things somehow; it will still be the fault of humans if it turns out to be a giant piece of shit; since it is learning from us. So, Zubiri... still think I don't have a full enough grasp on this yet? Quite contrary, I probably have a larger grasp on the full details of this problem than most people who try to figure it out. But thanks for your input.
DyslexicAtheist 5y ago
> The internet doesn't radicalize people. People radicalize people. I tend to agree but it's an oversimplification of the problem. There is a fantastic book about the psychology of radicalization by Robert B Caldini "Influence"[1] that has apart from the more common scenarios like exploiting reciprocity etc the idea about saying things out loud. There are 3 stages, you get people to read it, then you get them to say it then you get them to sign it. Once they say it it will be hard for them not to sign it since it means walking back on their argument and society likes consistency and hates flip-flopping. After you get them to sign, it's now recorded in history like something that can compromise you in future. Even you delete it you have said it before. This is relevant on especially for things that go viral or have a large audience. How does that relate to social media? Especially on platforms that enforce a real name policy you get shallow thoughts because people are careful (LinkedIn is a good example). But even on things like twitter / reddit people will have followers and a karma that they attach themselves (their ego) to. We do not communicate by saying things but we immediately jump to the stage of writing it down. Now these are usually not well thought out opinions since they haven't been argued in a group and tested against our peers. We blurt out not opinions but brain-farts that we test against an audience but at this stage they are already written down. If the message shared is popular you get the likes flooding in where every person is likely not to read this message more than once before liking / sharing. But the effect on the author is different because they end up reading what they wrote several times as a way of congratulating themselves and reliving the moment of gratification. So it's actually a form of self-radicalization on half baked thoughts (than radicalization by others). An important step is missing where the author of a message can verbalize the idea with real people f2f before jumping to "the writing it down" stage. That makes it harder not to double down once critic is expressed by an audience. Add to this tribal culture of in/out groups those who will oppose the message can be drowned out with a click of a button (I'm not arguing for letting trolls take over and abolishing mute/block button, but these don't exit IRL. Anyway I'm only trying to deconstruct the process) There are very few people on social media humble enough not to drink their own kool-aid. The majority of users are absolutely eaten by the system and spat out again without realizing what happened. the concept of writing it down is so powerful that we have even built a legal / trust system around it where we require people to scribble their name under something they have read to make it binding. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influence:_Science_and_Practice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influence:_Science_and_Practic...
raxxorrax 5y ago
TV talk shows basically had the same formula as Twitter. You don't invite the common, adjusted and perhaps boring personalities, you invite the most polarizing and special personalities you can find. Now they can share their craziness on Twitter together. The press is hostage in an attention economy and must further showcase people like that for financial stability. Anonymity means more honesty, which is far more interesting than an adjusted and boring corporate world full of advertiser messages and the latter is all you would ever get. That said, the loudest voices on Twitter or Facebook are mostly not anonymous, anonymous boards are mostly far better places to discuss anything. Some abuse it, but without it we would see a much worse net.

lazide 5y ago

I don’t think so - my impression is that it’s feed algorithms pushing the most incendiary topics to people because they get the most engagement. Nothing gets people going like someone saying something divisive or controversial after all. So pretty soon most of the feed is divisive bullshit.

int_19h 5y ago
Incendiary topics draw more attention, thus more likes / reshares. Feed algorithms can amplify this effect, but it's always there, unfortunately: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc
- lazide 5y ago
  Likes and reshares are often consumed via feed like interfaces though? I get it definitely happens with folks texting friends links or sharing it via email, but the friction with those is higher and it gives time for folks to think more than the feed interface. It’s highly efficient psychological pressure/engagement and maximizing the focus towards the engaging content that is the real problem IMO. It makes something that someone could think about (potentially) and choose to stop into something they become hyper engaged with constantly and can’t turn off.
ReactiveJelly 5y ago
> Nothing gets people going like someone saying something divisive Shiri's Scissor: https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/10/30/sort-by-controversial/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/10/30/sort-by-controversial/
- findingaway 5y ago
  Thank you for this.
zuminator 5y ago
Not only the most incendiary topics but the most incendiary people as well! So the crazy angry neighbor who AFK has two friends gets 500 followers on Twitter, and lots of "likes" on various partisan sites. That rush of approval causes the neighbor to invest even more of their time online where they feel important. This wouldn't be possible without network effects, so I agree, the algorithm can't be discounted or disambiguated from the phenomenon as a whole.
- sjmm1989 5y ago
  Yeah, we shouldn't discount the algorithms put in place by people; but we should also keep in mind that those algorithms only operate based on inputs from people. If the outputs the algorithms are giving you are not desirable, then it is solely the fault of the people who are feeding that algorithm in the way they are, etc and so forth. Algorithms are not sentient nor have agency over the results of their actions. We however, do. This is why the human element side of things is my target. Even if the algorithms change, not much will if we don't.
  - unkulunkulu 5y ago
    Algorithms are designed, evaluated and impoved by organizations, so are not a point of blame at all. They’re not accidentally putting divisive stuff to the top, the analytics, devs and management all surely see the consequences and decide that the algos are aligned with the business .
    - lazide 5y ago
      Many Organizations generally are within some sort of competitive landscape - companies in the market, non profits with donations, city and state govts for tax base. So they all will optimize for effectiveness towards some metric to some degree, restricted by whatever fear of backlash or consequences they may have. No one is going to approve a ‘say anything as long as it bumps ratings immediately’ algorithm, but almost everyone is going to try to do at least what the top competitor seems to be doing. Which is algorithmic/ML based engagement optimization, with some kind of ‘but not the most controversial if it’s literally nazis’ type filter for things with too much political blowback (aka calls for insurrection), or legal issues (child porn). If you look, it’s literally almost everywhere now. And earlier they didn’t even have the ‘not literally nazi’s’ filter.
bena 5y ago
But it's still people at the end of it. The "algorithm" didn't come up with the topic, didn't write the article, didn't perform the actions. People did. People bought the ads. People promoted the content. And ultimately, people also wrote the "algorithm".
- lazide 5y ago
  Some hyperbole, but considering the real world consequences right now maybe not as much as we’d like to believe - People are also the ones who use chemical weapons to gas their opponents in particularly nasty wars. It doesn’t mean we shouldn’t all agree to not do that, or even try to enforce that people don’t do that.
sjmm1989 5y ago
Not to quote taco girl too overly much; but how about both? Algorithms require input to give you output, right? So even if you are correct that badly created algoritms are to blame, we still have the people who fall for the algorithms outputs because they are feeding it the inputs. To put it simply, it all goes back to the calculator/computer quote in regard to their users. They are only as smart as the person using them. So, from that point of view; there are a lot of really dumb users on the internet.
- lazide 5y ago
  Not quite. If 99 out of 100 users input not-BS, and 1 user inputs BS, but the algorithm picks the 1 users BS input and feeds it to the other 99 first so they get angry and yell at each other over the 1 BS input together - that is a historically unique situation. If it does it at scale for cheap, that is also a historically unique situation. If it does it without a human being directly involved in the choosing and pushing process (and feeling bad potentially!), that is also a historically unique situation. If someone sees all 100 users posts together, it’s easy to see the BS is BS. If the BS post goes to the top of the feed and is the first thing they see, and the normal posts either don’t show up, or only a few of them show up? That is a completely different experience for the consumer of the media.
  - sjmm1989 5y ago
    I feel like all of this just means that teaching proper critical thinking in schools again would solve most of this. Along with maybe an educational update for those who missed it.
    - lazide 5y ago
      While it would help a little, you’ll always have a minimum of 25% (probably more like 50%+) of folks who lack the degree of emotional self control necessary for any sort of rational learning to override the emotional response. They might feel worse about it later because they know they shouldn’t have reacted that way, but in my experience that doesn’t help as much as you’d want. Doesn’t take much to get a mob going unfortunately.

TZubiri 5y ago

You are underestimating the effect that the speed and range of message transmission have on the kinds of ideologies that people can carry.

sjmm1989 5y ago
Actually, I understand it quite properly. I was merely just putting into easier to understand terms for others who might need it. I for one, have no doubt that the removal of the internet from most people's lives would reduce most of these problems to a standstill for the time being due to how exactly right you are about the effect of fast and long reaching communication has. That doesn't mean that I want to remove the internet completely from everyone's lives though. I just accept that many to most people aren't capable of handling it yet. Not yet. All these theories that people have on the other hand are them trying to grasp and come to terms with the very fact I just stated. I mean look at them right now. Some of them think algorithms are fully to blame, but this kind of behavior from humans has been around for centuries and beyond now. The only difference through out time is just the speed and distance of which communication occurs. So, the internet itself is not to blame for anything. The people are, entirely and thoroughly. The internet is for the most part right now, an inanimate object with zero agency or sentient logical thought processes. For now. And here's the catch... even if it ever gains those things somehow; it will still be the fault of humans if it turns out to be a giant piece of shit; since it is learning from us. So, Zubiri... still think I don't have a full enough grasp on this yet? Quite contrary, I probably have a larger grasp on the full details of this problem than most people who try to figure it out. But thanks for your input.

DyslexicAtheist 5y ago

> The internet doesn't radicalize people. People radicalize people. I tend to agree but it's an oversimplification of the problem. There is a fantastic book about the psychology of radicalization by Robert B Caldini "Influence"[1] that has apart from the more common scenarios like exploiting reciprocity etc the idea about saying things out loud. There are 3 stages, you get people to read it, then you get them to say it then you get them to sign it. Once they say it it will be hard for them not to sign it since it means walking back on their argument and society likes consistency and hates flip-flopping. After you get them to sign, it's now recorded in history like something that can compromise you in future. Even you delete it you have said it before. This is relevant on especially for things that go viral or have a large audience. How does that relate to social media? Especially on platforms that enforce a real name policy you get shallow thoughts because people are careful (LinkedIn is a good example). But even on things like twitter / reddit people will have followers and a karma that they attach themselves (their ego) to. We do not communicate by saying things but we immediately jump to the stage of writing it down. Now these are usually not well thought out opinions since they haven't been argued in a group and tested against our peers. We blurt out not opinions but brain-farts that we test against an audience but at this stage they are already written down. If the message shared is popular you get the likes flooding in where every person is likely not to read this message more than once before liking / sharing. But the effect on the author is different because they end up reading what they wrote several times as a way of congratulating themselves and reliving the moment of gratification. So it's actually a form of self-radicalization on half baked thoughts (than radicalization by others). An important step is missing where the author of a message can verbalize the idea with real people f2f before jumping to "the writing it down" stage. That makes it harder not to double down once critic is expressed by an audience. Add to this tribal culture of in/out groups those who will oppose the message can be drowned out with a click of a button (I'm not arguing for letting trolls take over and abolishing mute/block button, but these don't exit IRL. Anyway I'm only trying to deconstruct the process) There are very few people on social media humble enough not to drink their own kool-aid. The majority of users are absolutely eaten by the system and spat out again without realizing what happened. the concept of writing it down is so powerful that we have even built a legal / trust system around it where we require people to scribble their name under something they have read to make it binding. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influence:_Science_and_Practice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influence:_Science_and_Practic...

raxxorrax 5y ago

TV talk shows basically had the same formula as Twitter. You don't invite the common, adjusted and perhaps boring personalities, you invite the most polarizing and special personalities you can find. Now they can share their craziness on Twitter together. The press is hostage in an attention economy and must further showcase people like that for financial stability. Anonymity means more honesty, which is far more interesting than an adjusted and boring corporate world full of advertiser messages and the latter is all you would ever get. That said, the loudest voices on Twitter or Facebook are mostly not anonymous, anonymous boards are mostly far better places to discuss anything. Some abuse it, but without it we would see a much worse net.