3 ms·

I think 'the algorithm' truly is the bogeyman of our time. Have you considered that it is precisely people themselves who crave engagement and that it is the of

I think 'the algorithm' truly is the bogeyman of our time. Have you considered that it is precisely people themselves who crave engagement and that it is the often reviled paternalism which liberates people from following their worst instincts?

civilized 5y ago
Paternalism isn't categorically bad but I see it as a last resort. People have never had the option to filter out garbage from their feeds. If they did, there might be little need for paternalism.
- xpe 5y ago
  Paternalism? Call it that if you want -- just realize the word choice is loaded. Consider also: It can be useful to think of this as 'save me from my worst habits' or 'let my rational, planning self setup some guardrails for my self-defeating self'. Also, ask this: Is maximum freedom achieved by letting one act on their whims? Try defining freedom as 'the practical likelihood of achieving a goal' rather than 'the theoretical possibility' of doing so. What are the advantages of seeing freedom in such a light? When can constraints lead to better outcomes? Philosophers have a lot to say on these topics. I suggest moving past latching onto only one word (paternalism) that, for many people, can shut down critical and diverse thinking. Look at many perspectives and soak in the complexities.
moffkalast 5y ago
People crave engagement as much as they crave unhealthy food. Having a person stand behind you at all times with an infinite amount of the exact kind of burger you like isn't gonna help make you get thinner lol. And that's like the whole point of personalization algorithms.
- Barrin92 5y ago
  > isn't gonna help make you get thinner lol. sure as hell isn't but do you actually think the reason 65% of the American population is overweight is burger ads, rather than the simple fact that people unless very explicitly told not to will stuff their faces with cheap and delicious fast food? Do you think that requires coercion? Like in a world where McDonalds doesn't run ads, they all start working out and eat salads? The algorithm itself only exists to satisfy a never-ending demand by people, it's nothing else than an internet conveyor belt. When you walk into Twitter HQ and turn the algorithms off you think the people will greet you in the streets as liberators with flowers and open arms? You'll have a riot because Instagram and TikTok don't work any more
  - moffkalast 5y ago
    Nah I'm saying that some things have a level of healthy natural scarcity to them. That scarcity can be removed artificially to not always beneficial ends. Would I want an unlimited supply of free chocolate? Sure. Would I trust myself with it? Definitely not. Same applies here. I'm aware that for example Tiktok owes its entire popularity to its smart filtering and suggestions, but that's also why I've never tried it myself. It's like going out of your way to try heroin or something. You know it's not gonna end well.

civilized 5y ago

Paternalism isn't categorically bad but I see it as a last resort. People have never had the option to filter out garbage from their feeds. If they did, there might be little need for paternalism.

xpe 5y ago
Paternalism? Call it that if you want -- just realize the word choice is loaded. Consider also: It can be useful to think of this as 'save me from my worst habits' or 'let my rational, planning self setup some guardrails for my self-defeating self'. Also, ask this: Is maximum freedom achieved by letting one act on their whims? Try defining freedom as 'the practical likelihood of achieving a goal' rather than 'the theoretical possibility' of doing so. What are the advantages of seeing freedom in such a light? When can constraints lead to better outcomes? Philosophers have a lot to say on these topics. I suggest moving past latching onto only one word (paternalism) that, for many people, can shut down critical and diverse thinking. Look at many perspectives and soak in the complexities.

moffkalast 5y ago

People crave engagement as much as they crave unhealthy food. Having a person stand behind you at all times with an infinite amount of the exact kind of burger you like isn't gonna help make you get thinner lol. And that's like the whole point of personalization algorithms.

Barrin92 5y ago
> isn't gonna help make you get thinner lol. sure as hell isn't but do you actually think the reason 65% of the American population is overweight is burger ads, rather than the simple fact that people unless very explicitly told not to will stuff their faces with cheap and delicious fast food? Do you think that requires coercion? Like in a world where McDonalds doesn't run ads, they all start working out and eat salads? The algorithm itself only exists to satisfy a never-ending demand by people, it's nothing else than an internet conveyor belt. When you walk into Twitter HQ and turn the algorithms off you think the people will greet you in the streets as liberators with flowers and open arms? You'll have a riot because Instagram and TikTok don't work any more
- moffkalast 5y ago
  Nah I'm saying that some things have a level of healthy natural scarcity to them. That scarcity can be removed artificially to not always beneficial ends. Would I want an unlimited supply of free chocolate? Sure. Would I trust myself with it? Definitely not. Same applies here. I'm aware that for example Tiktok owes its entire popularity to its smart filtering and suggestions, but that's also why I've never tried it myself. It's like going out of your way to try heroin or something. You know it's not gonna end well.