4 ms·

But what if "the algorithm" is turns out to be rather basic? Maybe it just gives people more of what they like. Filter bubbles, polarization and herd mentality

But what if "the algorithm" is turns out to be rather basic? Maybe it just gives people more of what they like. Filter bubbles, polarization and herd mentality could be a natural, inevitable consequence of any Twitter-like UI and a central database.

pasiaj 4y ago
The algo surely is quite basic. I believe JanneVee is saying that a "rather basic" algorithm that tries to maximize engagement drifts towards promoting the more divisive posts that amplify our tribalistic tendencies. And by giving more visibility to polarizing content it incentivises others to create more polarising content. The algorithm therefore is a positive feedback loop of polarization. It doesn't just show what we are, but amplifies our worst (or tribalistic) tendencies. Relevant Howard Stern reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9G6xu-J_Dmc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9G6xu-J_Dmc
JanneVee 4y ago
The problem is that I tried to put myself into a software development filter bubble but yet the herd mentality and polarization bled through the filter. It is not a single issue of "algorithm = bad". It is multiple issues intersecting with psychology. It is the subversion of willpower by hijacking the dopamine that you feel rewarded to keep scrolling, it is the fracturing the shared reality by presenting different content to different people depending on what they engaged with and a number of other issues... all this makes it a complicated mess where one set of people starve themselves to death because they think they are fat according to their feed and other where people eat themselves to death because fat is beautiful according to their reality. You can fix one issue but then the next issue props up and all of a sudden the complications of human psychology makes the unintended consequences even more dire. All this to make you watch ads and buy things.
- Dwolb 4y ago
  Jaron Lanier’s claim is the feedback mechanism (clicks, engagement) isn’t nuanced enough [1]. i.e. If the algorithm had more insight into a given person’s emotional (and intellectual?) response, the outcomes could be better than the status quo. [1] https://open.spotify.com/episode/3DBNkrAY5sCIX2sqHpZ567?si=M8_bL_PQT9asMG-N31O8Sg https://open.spotify.com/episode/3DBNkrAY5sCIX2sqHpZ567?si=M...
  - JanneVee 4y ago
    The word here is "could"... It can and has been used for outcomes that hasn't favored the users interests. And that is in my view a worse outcome than status quo.
    - Dwolb 4y ago
      I definitely hedged yeah.
- sobkas 4y ago
  > The problem is that I tried to put myself into a software development filter bubble but yet the herd mentality and polarization bled through the filter. But you understand that technology have social consequences? Discussing them is vital part of discussing technology. "Moving fast and breaking things" is fun and all, but when you endangering peoples lives and wellbeing, maybe you should think twice about what you are doing.
  - thrown12 4y ago
    Technology is a slave to capital. Talking about technology as though it has any moral imperative other than "make more money" in the West is naive at best. At worst it is not only boring to anyone over 21, but it's counter productive to improving the world. Our newest toys are there to distract from the woman behind the curtain. In short: let me read what I want and save your moralizing for the people who actually make decisions. None of which are technologists (any more).
    - sobkas 4y ago
      >Technology is a slave to capital. You mean it's slave to people controling capital? Because capital by itself isn't sentient or capable of making decisions. >Talking about technology as though it has any moral imperative other than "make more money" in the West is naive at best. Technology have moral consequences, not a "moral imperative". Technology doesn't care if it counts number of Jews, carrots or cans of Zyklon-b. But people should, and normal people do. Tehnology shouldn't be an excuse to do whatever you want, because "computer said so". Someone programed/tauhgt that computer. Someone is responsible for it. >At worst it is not only boring to anyone over 21, but it's counter productive to improving the world. Capital, corporations and billionaires are human inventions, so does kings, slavery, white supremacy, misogyny. Kings didn't stopped to be kings just because everyone asked them nicely. It took time but in the end, kings were no more. Because in the end they depend on ordinary people to do their biddings. Jeff Bezos doesn't check if drivers reached their quota of urin filled bottles, people (directly or indirectly) do this. >In short: let me read what I want and save your moralizing for the people who actually make decisions. None of which are technologists (any more). Not talking about problematic technologies, decisions made by people in power doesn't make them go away. Pretending bad things didn't happen is delusional, but just talking doesn't help either. Actions are also needed, even if they are inconvenient or dangerous. There are many ways change can be brought, protests, civil disobedience and more. But pretending everything is ok, will make every call to action fail, even before it started.
axg11 4y ago
Bingo. Filter bubbles are nothing new. Newspapers are lo-fi filter bubbles. Each newspaper occupied a different part of the political spectrum with its own biases. The concept of "following" is also a filter bubble. People will naturally follow other Twitter users with similar views, until the point where most of their feed consists of like-minded tweets. We are independently blaming every social media platform for what is, fundamentally, a human problem.
- JanneVee 4y ago
  Well the problem I'm trying to point out is that yes it is a fundamentally human problem. The problem is that a machine is amplifying this. There is a curation of content that is personal that may lock you harder in the filter bubble than a newspaper trying to cater to a wide audience. To cater to wider audience occasionally the newspaper will contain something that outside of your safe little bubble. It is a bigger chance that you expand and/or evolve your views because of this. Of course the option is to be closed minded, but that is a choice by the reader and not the social media platform which do it for you automatically to keep you using the platform.

pasiaj 4y ago

The algo surely is quite basic. I believe JanneVee is saying that a "rather basic" algorithm that tries to maximize engagement drifts towards promoting the more divisive posts that amplify our tribalistic tendencies. And by giving more visibility to polarizing content it incentivises others to create more polarising content. The algorithm therefore is a positive feedback loop of polarization. It doesn't just show what we are, but amplifies our worst (or tribalistic) tendencies. Relevant Howard Stern reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9G6xu-J_Dmc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9G6xu-J_Dmc

JanneVee 4y ago

The problem is that I tried to put myself into a software development filter bubble but yet the herd mentality and polarization bled through the filter. It is not a single issue of "algorithm = bad". It is multiple issues intersecting with psychology. It is the subversion of willpower by hijacking the dopamine that you feel rewarded to keep scrolling, it is the fracturing the shared reality by presenting different content to different people depending on what they engaged with and a number of other issues... all this makes it a complicated mess where one set of people starve themselves to death because they think they are fat according to their feed and other where people eat themselves to death because fat is beautiful according to their reality. You can fix one issue but then the next issue props up and all of a sudden the complications of human psychology makes the unintended consequences even more dire. All this to make you watch ads and buy things.

Dwolb 4y ago
Jaron Lanier’s claim is the feedback mechanism (clicks, engagement) isn’t nuanced enough [1]. i.e. If the algorithm had more insight into a given person’s emotional (and intellectual?) response, the outcomes could be better than the status quo. [1] https://open.spotify.com/episode/3DBNkrAY5sCIX2sqHpZ567?si=M8_bL_PQT9asMG-N31O8Sg https://open.spotify.com/episode/3DBNkrAY5sCIX2sqHpZ567?si=M...
- JanneVee 4y ago
  The word here is "could"... It can and has been used for outcomes that hasn't favored the users interests. And that is in my view a worse outcome than status quo.
  - Dwolb 4y ago
    I definitely hedged yeah.
sobkas 4y ago
> The problem is that I tried to put myself into a software development filter bubble but yet the herd mentality and polarization bled through the filter. But you understand that technology have social consequences? Discussing them is vital part of discussing technology. "Moving fast and breaking things" is fun and all, but when you endangering peoples lives and wellbeing, maybe you should think twice about what you are doing.
- thrown12 4y ago
  Technology is a slave to capital. Talking about technology as though it has any moral imperative other than "make more money" in the West is naive at best. At worst it is not only boring to anyone over 21, but it's counter productive to improving the world. Our newest toys are there to distract from the woman behind the curtain. In short: let me read what I want and save your moralizing for the people who actually make decisions. None of which are technologists (any more).
  - sobkas 4y ago
    >Technology is a slave to capital. You mean it's slave to people controling capital? Because capital by itself isn't sentient or capable of making decisions. >Talking about technology as though it has any moral imperative other than "make more money" in the West is naive at best. Technology have moral consequences, not a "moral imperative". Technology doesn't care if it counts number of Jews, carrots or cans of Zyklon-b. But people should, and normal people do. Tehnology shouldn't be an excuse to do whatever you want, because "computer said so". Someone programed/tauhgt that computer. Someone is responsible for it. >At worst it is not only boring to anyone over 21, but it's counter productive to improving the world. Capital, corporations and billionaires are human inventions, so does kings, slavery, white supremacy, misogyny. Kings didn't stopped to be kings just because everyone asked them nicely. It took time but in the end, kings were no more. Because in the end they depend on ordinary people to do their biddings. Jeff Bezos doesn't check if drivers reached their quota of urin filled bottles, people (directly or indirectly) do this. >In short: let me read what I want and save your moralizing for the people who actually make decisions. None of which are technologists (any more). Not talking about problematic technologies, decisions made by people in power doesn't make them go away. Pretending bad things didn't happen is delusional, but just talking doesn't help either. Actions are also needed, even if they are inconvenient or dangerous. There are many ways change can be brought, protests, civil disobedience and more. But pretending everything is ok, will make every call to action fail, even before it started.

axg11 4y ago

Bingo. Filter bubbles are nothing new. Newspapers are lo-fi filter bubbles. Each newspaper occupied a different part of the political spectrum with its own biases. The concept of "following" is also a filter bubble. People will naturally follow other Twitter users with similar views, until the point where most of their feed consists of like-minded tweets. We are independently blaming every social media platform for what is, fundamentally, a human problem.

JanneVee 4y ago
Well the problem I'm trying to point out is that yes it is a fundamentally human problem. The problem is that a machine is amplifying this. There is a curation of content that is personal that may lock you harder in the filter bubble than a newspaper trying to cater to a wide audience. To cater to wider audience occasionally the newspaper will contain something that outside of your safe little bubble. It is a bigger chance that you expand and/or evolve your views because of this. Of course the option is to be closed minded, but that is a choice by the reader and not the social media platform which do it for you automatically to keep you using the platform.