4 ms·
That would only be the solution if the problem was bad speech. The problem is that algorithms optimise for engagement and therefore amplify increasingly extremi
by smcn 4y ago
That would only be the solution if the problem was bad speech. The problem is that algorithms optimise for engagement and therefore amplify increasingly extremist views. You cannot talk your way out of that position, it surely must include intervention?
- sampo 4y agoMaybe you also cannot algorithm out of the position that algorithms took you in.
- saurik 4y agoIt sounds like the problem implicit in your framing then is "algorithms", not extremists--a stance I agree with--which would imply the disinformation isn't coming from big tech's users, it is caused by big tech itself, and maybe it is the algorithms that should be limited and regulated instead of the discussions.
- anigbrowl 4y agoI doubt this, because it was possible to 'go viral' to a limited degree way back in the days of Usenet, with any algorithmic selection or amplification going on at all. preferential attachment is a social phenomenon which businesses leverage for profit (not just int he era of social media, but since the establishment of brands and before that, the awareness by politicians and theatrical promoters of how compelling parasocial relationships can be). Algorithmic manipulation is a problem, but you could switch it all off in the morning and you would still have the same issues. Any system can and will be gamed.
- slg 4y agoThese algorithms are a multiplier to the problem, but they aren't the root cause. You can find plenty of misinformation on cable news and you can't blame that exclusively on algorithms.
- smcn 4y agoNot the root cause, no. I'd say the root cause is reliance on advertising for income because that means that you now need to draw as many viewers/users as possible, and that's why they start to create content which maximizes reactions or engagement.
- slg 4y agoBut advertising still isn't the root cause. Why does this type of content draw more viewers?
- smcn 4y agoAre you trying to say that biology is the root cause? The content is successful as it emits a reaction from us. Whether a good reaction or a bad one, we still engage with it. Whether you're binge watching a TV show you love or hate scrolling a subreddit that makes you angry, the content is designed to elicit some form of reaction that keeps you coming back or memetically passing it on. However that is not a new development in our biology, we've always been that way. It's just that we're exploiting those aspects of ourselves more and more. Weaponising it to extract as much profit as possible. You could go another way, I guess, and say that capitalism is the root cause as "profit at any cost" allows the justification of these actions.
- slg 4y agoThere are two aspects to the root cause. You mentioned the first part, basic human biology pushes us towards content that elicits a reaction. The second part is that lies inherently have an advantage over the truth to elicit a reaction because they are only limited by human imagination while the truth is limited obviously by the truth. As long as humans have the free will to engage with whatever content they choose, there is a natural human reaction to engage with lies. Therefore, the idea that truth eventually wins out over lies is inherently flawed. It isn't the fault of capitalism or algorithms. The problem is human nature doesn't respond properly to bad speech. We can't change human nature, so the only option left is stopping bad speech.