8 ms·

This distinction is needlessly pedantic. While social media companies might not have initially sought to promote toxic content, they have long since known they

by nluken 4y ago

This distinction is needlessly pedantic. While social media companies might not have initially sought to promote toxic content, they have long since known they are effectively doing so and have done very little to stop it. In practice, "content that increases the engagement rate" so frequently means toxic content that it's not a useful distinction.

q-big 4y ago
What metric do you then propose to optimize for to stop promoting "toxic" content?
- sa1 4y ago
  You do not necessarily need a separate metric, you can filter out toxic content from other engaging content.
  - q-big 4y ago
    > you can filter out toxic content from other engaging content. If this is your stance: what algorithm do you propose to separate content that is "toxic" from content that is "non-toxic"?
    - sa1 4y ago
      I'm not taking a stance, just pointing out that there does not need to be any single metric you need to optimise for.
  - spookthesunset 4y ago
    Who gets to define what “toxic content” is? Is the Great Barrington Declaration toxic? How about studies that show masks might not work? How about public sourced data showing the IFR of Covid was nowhere near what “the experts” modeled early on?
    - sa1 4y ago
      The owners of the space can make those decisions, and the users can provide feedback, just like it happens now. There's no static status quo where everybody's happy, just like there's no static society.
- arrosenberg 4y ago
  Don’t optimize, don’t recommend. Chronological timeline of only things you directly subscribed to. If you want to go down a rabbit hole, you should have to find it on your own.
  - BitwiseFool 4y ago
    My inner Libertarian is screaming, but I would support a "choose your algorithm" law. Wherein social media platforms would be required to allow the user a clear choice to opt-out of algorithmic recommendations. Perhaps even requiring a basic chronological feed. I know the actual text of the bill would require a lot of finagling and legalese, but that's the concept of what I want.
    - collegeburner 4y ago
      except recommendation platforms are more popular all the time. ppl will choose the algo feed bc they like it more. idk why but everybody is taking america off the hook for wanting toxic shit and gravitating to it. its at least half a demand side problem. if u want an example: tiktok has the for you page (algo discovery) and the following page (just ppl u follow). its the fyp where ppl spend time.
      - BitwiseFool 4y ago
        Please type out your words in full, using so much texting shorthand significantly detracts from what you are trying to say.
      - _aavaa_ 4y ago
        I can't respond to the child comment, so I'll reply here. The "type everything out" must be a generational/cultural thing. Because when I read your comment I literally did not realize you used words like "ppl". I automatically expanded it to people when reading it
        dorfsmay 4y ago
        If that's true, why is twitter making it so difficult (and more difficult over time) to see only content you follow, and Facebook making it impossible?
- nluken 4y ago
  The answer to that question has nothing to do with my objection. I was simply pointing out the irrelevance of the "original intent" of these algorithms, given that we now know, and have known what they do. Focusing on that downplays their effects, which can indeed be considered their intent nowadays since we have known the effects for a while. Say you hit a button, and each time you hit it you gain a million dollars. After you hit that button once or twice, you discover that it also causes great harm to other people. If you continue to hit the button, your original intent (when you didn't know it's effects) is no longer relevant to whether or not it you should continue hitting the button, since you would now knowingly be harming people for your own profit. The side-effect is no longer a side-effect. It's just an effect. To answer your question anyway, perhaps we should consider the well-being of a user and bake that into our algorithms. It might not be as profitable, but there's a reason we regulate companies- having some restrictions on profitability can often be a net benefit to society.
  - q-big 4y ago
    > perhaps we should consider the well-being of a user and bake that into our algorithms. It might not be as profitable The problem rather is: how are we supposed to algorithmically measure the well-being of a user?
r3trohack3r 4y ago
I'm not sure it is needlessly pedantic. > In other words, maybe its undermining our current system by actually being more technically democratic. I think OPs point is valid if the algorithm is really just giving humans more of what they want. In other words, if the engagement metric really is responding to how humans prefer to spend their time, this really is a view into what a more technically democratic society looks like. Personally, I don't like the idea of that and would prefer the thought that these algorithms really are measuring the wrong thing! To highlight the point I'm making, assuming the above is true, your stance could be summed up as: "yes, humans prefer this content, but we know better and will make the right decision on their behalf" To re-enforce a sibling comment, being able to choose your own algorithm is exactly how you tease apart these two takes. Twitter supports this (chronological vs. engagement) - I personally opt for chronological. I'd be interested to see the stats on usage of that!
- marcosdumay 4y ago
  > I think OPs point is valid if the algorithm is really just giving humans more of what they want. What makes people engaged and what people want are not the same thing by definition. If you want to state they are, you should say why you think it.
  - _aavaa_ 4y ago
    I think the burden is on you to explain why it's not the case. Nobody is being forced to read/share that content. People are choosing to do so.
    - nluken 4y ago
      You'd be venturing into the realm of psychology for that, but I would argue that short-term engagement != long-term desire. Think of gambling or gaming addictions- nobody's "forcing" those people to engage in behavior against their best interest, but many would argue that they're not freely choosing to succumb to addiction either.
      - 4y ago
_aavaa_ 4y ago
> they have long since known they are effectively doing so and have done very little to stop it Just because they haven't succeeded does not mean they haven't tried.

by nluken 4y ago

q-big 4y ago

What metric do you then propose to optimize for to stop promoting "toxic" content?

sa1 4y ago
You do not necessarily need a separate metric, you can filter out toxic content from other engaging content.
- q-big 4y ago
  > you can filter out toxic content from other engaging content. If this is your stance: what algorithm do you propose to separate content that is "toxic" from content that is "non-toxic"?
  - sa1 4y ago
    I'm not taking a stance, just pointing out that there does not need to be any single metric you need to optimise for.
- spookthesunset 4y ago
  Who gets to define what “toxic content” is? Is the Great Barrington Declaration toxic? How about studies that show masks might not work? How about public sourced data showing the IFR of Covid was nowhere near what “the experts” modeled early on?
  - sa1 4y ago
    The owners of the space can make those decisions, and the users can provide feedback, just like it happens now. There's no static status quo where everybody's happy, just like there's no static society.
arrosenberg 4y ago
Don’t optimize, don’t recommend. Chronological timeline of only things you directly subscribed to. If you want to go down a rabbit hole, you should have to find it on your own.
- BitwiseFool 4y ago
  My inner Libertarian is screaming, but I would support a "choose your algorithm" law. Wherein social media platforms would be required to allow the user a clear choice to opt-out of algorithmic recommendations. Perhaps even requiring a basic chronological feed. I know the actual text of the bill would require a lot of finagling and legalese, but that's the concept of what I want.
  - collegeburner 4y ago
    except recommendation platforms are more popular all the time. ppl will choose the algo feed bc they like it more. idk why but everybody is taking america off the hook for wanting toxic shit and gravitating to it. its at least half a demand side problem. if u want an example: tiktok has the for you page (algo discovery) and the following page (just ppl u follow). its the fyp where ppl spend time.
    - BitwiseFool 4y ago
      Please type out your words in full, using so much texting shorthand significantly detracts from what you are trying to say.
    - _aavaa_ 4y ago
      I can't respond to the child comment, so I'll reply here. The "type everything out" must be a generational/cultural thing. Because when I read your comment I literally did not realize you used words like "ppl". I automatically expanded it to people when reading it
      - dorfsmay 4y ago
        If that's true, why is twitter making it so difficult (and more difficult over time) to see only content you follow, and Facebook making it impossible?
nluken 4y ago
The answer to that question has nothing to do with my objection. I was simply pointing out the irrelevance of the "original intent" of these algorithms, given that we now know, and have known what they do. Focusing on that downplays their effects, which can indeed be considered their intent nowadays since we have known the effects for a while. Say you hit a button, and each time you hit it you gain a million dollars. After you hit that button once or twice, you discover that it also causes great harm to other people. If you continue to hit the button, your original intent (when you didn't know it's effects) is no longer relevant to whether or not it you should continue hitting the button, since you would now knowingly be harming people for your own profit. The side-effect is no longer a side-effect. It's just an effect. To answer your question anyway, perhaps we should consider the well-being of a user and bake that into our algorithms. It might not be as profitable, but there's a reason we regulate companies- having some restrictions on profitability can often be a net benefit to society.
- q-big 4y ago
  > perhaps we should consider the well-being of a user and bake that into our algorithms. It might not be as profitable The problem rather is: how are we supposed to algorithmically measure the well-being of a user?

r3trohack3r 4y ago

I'm not sure it is needlessly pedantic. > In other words, maybe its undermining our current system by actually being more technically democratic. I think OPs point is valid if the algorithm is really just giving humans more of what they want. In other words, if the engagement metric really is responding to how humans prefer to spend their time, this really is a view into what a more technically democratic society looks like. Personally, I don't like the idea of that and would prefer the thought that these algorithms really are measuring the wrong thing! To highlight the point I'm making, assuming the above is true, your stance could be summed up as: "yes, humans prefer this content, but we know better and will make the right decision on their behalf" To re-enforce a sibling comment, being able to choose your own algorithm is exactly how you tease apart these two takes. Twitter supports this (chronological vs. engagement) - I personally opt for chronological. I'd be interested to see the stats on usage of that!

marcosdumay 4y ago
> I think OPs point is valid if the algorithm is really just giving humans more of what they want. What makes people engaged and what people want are not the same thing by definition. If you want to state they are, you should say why you think it.
- _aavaa_ 4y ago
  I think the burden is on you to explain why it's not the case. Nobody is being forced to read/share that content. People are choosing to do so.
  - nluken 4y ago
    You'd be venturing into the realm of psychology for that, but I would argue that short-term engagement != long-term desire. Think of gambling or gaming addictions- nobody's "forcing" those people to engage in behavior against their best interest, but many would argue that they're not freely choosing to succumb to addiction either.
    - 4y ago

_aavaa_ 4y ago

> they have long since known they are effectively doing so and have done very little to stop it Just because they haven't succeeded does not mean they haven't tried.