3 ms·

It is true. UN has a report on it - https://www.un.org/sites/un2.un.org/files/attention_economy_feb.pdf https://www.un.org/sites/un2.un.org/files/attention_econ

by gsatic 3y ago

It is true. UN has a report on it - https://www.un.org/sites/un2.un.org/files/attention_economy_feb.pdf https://www.un.org/sites/un2.un.org/files/attention_economy_... The only small correction would be AI is not required. What was required to overwhelm everything is Cost of Broadcast dropping to 0. Spammers and scammers can mass bombard billions 24*7 cause there is no big cost per message sent. The cost is borne by the receiver to wade through the ever growing sewage placed in front of them. As a result less than 0.5% of content produced is consumed as mentioned in the report. Its probably similar to HN but HN is not going to measure it or inform you about it.

Loquebantur 3y ago
You need a web of trust, not a web of advertisement and anonymous spam. Just as in real life, there needs to be the possibility to reliably identify yourself easily to others and establish trusted channels of communication. Not just in a P2P manner, but in the sense of a town meeting. Your attention is worth real money, it is billable working hours. Anonymous actors with ill intent stealing it is a crime without prosecution. That should change.
- gsatic 3y ago
  You could say HN has a decent web of trust, but it doesn't solve the info overload problem. Think of how many links are not being clicked or read by anyone. HN can show us the number everyday. If they say for every 100 links submitted only 1 is getting read. And month by month that 100 is growing to 1000 and 10000 why should/will ppl submit links? HN looks alive. But right now who knows what the number is so the submissions and traffic keep flowing and growing. Scaling it up, when we talk about a dead networks, info exploding for no great reason, is something we need to track and think about more.
  - Loquebantur 3y ago
    HN is no "decent web of trust". People are anonymous, they post anonymously and comment as such. Accordingly, incentive to contribute substantially is minimal at best. Look at your own comment: you didn't really read what I wrote and made some cheap whataboutism-statement. Useless information rotting away in the void until final deletion is no problem. Incentive to spam others without blowback is.

by gsatic 3y ago

Loquebantur 3y ago

You need a web of trust, not a web of advertisement and anonymous spam. Just as in real life, there needs to be the possibility to reliably identify yourself easily to others and establish trusted channels of communication. Not just in a P2P manner, but in the sense of a town meeting. Your attention is worth real money, it is billable working hours. Anonymous actors with ill intent stealing it is a crime without prosecution. That should change.

gsatic 3y ago
You could say HN has a decent web of trust, but it doesn't solve the info overload problem. Think of how many links are not being clicked or read by anyone. HN can show us the number everyday. If they say for every 100 links submitted only 1 is getting read. And month by month that 100 is growing to 1000 and 10000 why should/will ppl submit links? HN looks alive. But right now who knows what the number is so the submissions and traffic keep flowing and growing. Scaling it up, when we talk about a dead networks, info exploding for no great reason, is something we need to track and think about more.
- Loquebantur 3y ago
  HN is no "decent web of trust". People are anonymous, they post anonymously and comment as such. Accordingly, incentive to contribute substantially is minimal at best. Look at your own comment: you didn't really read what I wrote and made some cheap whataboutism-statement. Useless information rotting away in the void until final deletion is no problem. Incentive to spam others without blowback is.