28 ms·

...is your solution to have those sharing their pain and suffering made to stop? I seriously don't understand your point, nor the level of mental gymnastics it

by mxkopy 3y ago

...is your solution to have those sharing their pain and suffering made to stop? I seriously don't understand your point, nor the level of mental gymnastics it takes to see a trend of independently dissatisfied people and say - oh, my neighborhood is doing fine, you're just being defeatist. I'd wager that if you "zoom out" what you see is a dangerously reckless societal experiment for some, and a life of modern amenities for others. Both can be true at the same time.

echelon 3y ago
Good news is seldom shared or amplified. It's also seldom relevant, but I'd argue the same is true of the negativity. Online content is overwhelmingly negative. Bad things happen, but in reality the proportionality is much smaller than you encounter online. But negativity is what gets amplified, since that drives engagement. The smallest grievances become threads that take up disproportional space in the attention feed and crowd out the rest. I guess I'm wondering if this isn't just the algorithm, but also an amplification of certain subpopulations over others. The ones that tend to be angry. > ...is your solution to have those sharing their pain and suffering made to stop? I want a mute button. Or a threshold that caps it past a certain point. Or, if this is just some people contributing to most of the problem, maybe just a way to opt out of their noisiest signals. People can say all they want, but it doesn't mean they deserve a place in my limited attention and emotional energy feed. Emotion is contagious. I want my media use to drop to only the most salient bits. And I want it to be more positive.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- mxkopy 3y ago
  Nobody is forcing you to use social media. If you don't want to see something you don't have to. On the flip side you should consider that some people like the affirmation and validity they get out of hearing stories similar to their own. People have their own needs that are met by social media. If yours aren't, maybe consider that you aren't the target audience?
  - echelon 3y ago
    > Nobody is forcing you to use social media. If you don't want to see something you don't have to. > People have their own needs that are met by social media. If yours aren't, maybe consider that you aren't the target audience? The internet isn't for me? That's interesting. I was here first and then the platforms came and ripped apart our old methods of high-signal communication. RSS, IRC, and forums are ghost towns or dead. Replaced with anger amplification and marketing money printers. My response to this is that we can perhaps begin filtering out these voices and negative remarks with AI and NLP. That could make social media broadly useful again, even if the platform owners themselves would be opposed.
    - mxkopy 3y ago
      No, the internet is not for you. It's used by billions of people around the planet. What I'm hearing is basically "the poors are making too much noise for my liking." Well, prepare to get eaten I guess.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - echelon 3y ago
        Sigh.
      - whythre 3y ago
        Enshittification is happening everywhere. I also mourn the vanishing old internet. Social media is increasingly difficult to curate, and our search engines are compromised to the point they don’t work. We are at the mercy of algorithms that are measurably driving young people insane, and you are like ‘lol at least lots of people use it, get destroyed.’ That doesn’t seem like a very thoughtful or measured response.
        mxkopy 3y ago
        Confounding enshittification with people daring to express negativty in 'echelon's internet' is lacking empathy. Platform creep is a problem. People looking for validity in their emotions is not. Anyone who says the internet, a resource used by billions of people, and prescribes changes that suit their personal preferences, is probably narcissistic too.

by mxkopy 3y ago

echelon 3y ago

Good news is seldom shared or amplified. It's also seldom relevant, but I'd argue the same is true of the negativity. Online content is overwhelmingly negative. Bad things happen, but in reality the proportionality is much smaller than you encounter online. But negativity is what gets amplified, since that drives engagement. The smallest grievances become threads that take up disproportional space in the attention feed and crowd out the rest. I guess I'm wondering if this isn't just the algorithm, but also an amplification of certain subpopulations over others. The ones that tend to be angry. > ...is your solution to have those sharing their pain and suffering made to stop? I want a mute button. Or a threshold that caps it past a certain point. Or, if this is just some people contributing to most of the problem, maybe just a way to opt out of their noisiest signals. People can say all they want, but it doesn't mean they deserve a place in my limited attention and emotional energy feed. Emotion is contagious. I want my media use to drop to only the most salient bits. And I want it to be more positive.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
mxkopy 3y ago
Nobody is forcing you to use social media. If you don't want to see something you don't have to. On the flip side you should consider that some people like the affirmation and validity they get out of hearing stories similar to their own. People have their own needs that are met by social media. If yours aren't, maybe consider that you aren't the target audience?
- echelon 3y ago
  > Nobody is forcing you to use social media. If you don't want to see something you don't have to. > People have their own needs that are met by social media. If yours aren't, maybe consider that you aren't the target audience? The internet isn't for me? That's interesting. I was here first and then the platforms came and ripped apart our old methods of high-signal communication. RSS, IRC, and forums are ghost towns or dead. Replaced with anger amplification and marketing money printers. My response to this is that we can perhaps begin filtering out these voices and negative remarks with AI and NLP. That could make social media broadly useful again, even if the platform owners themselves would be opposed.
  - mxkopy 3y ago
    No, the internet is not for you. It's used by billions of people around the planet. What I'm hearing is basically "the poors are making too much noise for my liking." Well, prepare to get eaten I guess.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - echelon 3y ago
      Sigh.
    - whythre 3y ago
      Enshittification is happening everywhere. I also mourn the vanishing old internet. Social media is increasingly difficult to curate, and our search engines are compromised to the point they don’t work. We are at the mercy of algorithms that are measurably driving young people insane, and you are like ‘lol at least lots of people use it, get destroyed.’ That doesn’t seem like a very thoughtful or measured response.
      - mxkopy 3y ago
        Confounding enshittification with people daring to express negativty in 'echelon's internet' is lacking empathy. Platform creep is a problem. People looking for validity in their emotions is not. Anyone who says the internet, a resource used by billions of people, and prescribes changes that suit their personal preferences, is probably narcissistic too.