5 ms·

It's time to ban all social media, or at the very least any kind of "for you" feed. It's the only way to put a stop to this kind of engagement maximization.

dangus 3y ago
Let’s take it further: ban semiconductors. It’s the only way to put a stop to this kind of engagement maximization.
- mrguyorama 3y ago
  You've really lubed up that slope!
  - dangus 3y ago
    Yes that was the satirical point I was making. The slippery slope was intentional.
- rhaway84773 3y ago
  Your comment is literally the slippery slope fallacy in action. A world without social media algorithmic feeds would be extremely tolerable and even better for the vast majority of people in the world. A world without semiconductors would not be. Also, a ban on semiconductors is not possible while one on algorithmic For You feeds isn’t just possible but would be fairly trivial requiring only the passage of a handful of bills across a handful of major countries, before it spread across the world.
  - dangus 3y ago
    Yes I know, the slippery slope was the idea. I was being satirical about the person I responded to, because their idea of an outright ban of personalized content is an incredible overreach. I also disagree that legislation is just that easy. Many proposed laws to restrict social media are unconstitutional under the 1st amendment. And to those who dislike algorithmic feeds I say “speak for yourself.” Banning them would be like banning ESPN because sports are a waste of of time.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
nine_k 3y ago
Look how well does banning specific parts of the internet work in places like Turkey or Russia or India or even China. Look how well did banning of alcohol (which was a really problematic. destructive substance) work in the US. Banning what people crave is a stopgap measure at best, and it increases the popularity of the banned thing because it gives that thing more publicity, even while limiting its availability.
- wruza 3y ago
  You’re comparing apples to oranges. Totalitarians ban information, not economy, which is weak anyway. When they ban (or get banned), nothing happens. When US bans a social media giant, it immediately loses most of its value. When EU agrees, it goes bankrupt. Look how well specific terms on pornsites were banned. E.g. young or sister.
- jstarfish 3y ago
  Eradication isn't the point-- disruption is. > it increases the popularity of the banned thing because it gives that thing more publicity Popularity be damned, cocaine doesn't need a publicist. Yet we ban it to maximize the number of hoops people have to jump through to obtain it. As a result, you can only get your hands on so much, and it will cost you. The "ban" rate-limits consumption.
- mcpackieh 3y ago
  All countries "ban specific parts of the internet" insofar as they have laws that make certain business models illegal and, those businesses being illegal, websites for them don't exist in the first place. For instance, websites to sell your organs are "illegal" in America because buying organs from people isn't a legal business practice in America. That kind of business isn't allowed, therefore that kind of website doesn't exist. So you don't ban social media websites; you ban social media business practices.
autoexec 3y ago
No need to ban social media, but I'd agree that companies should be accountable for what they promote using their own algorithms

dangus 3y ago

Let’s take it further: ban semiconductors. It’s the only way to put a stop to this kind of engagement maximization.

mrguyorama 3y ago
You've really lubed up that slope!
- dangus 3y ago
  Yes that was the satirical point I was making. The slippery slope was intentional.
rhaway84773 3y ago
Your comment is literally the slippery slope fallacy in action. A world without social media algorithmic feeds would be extremely tolerable and even better for the vast majority of people in the world. A world without semiconductors would not be. Also, a ban on semiconductors is not possible while one on algorithmic For You feeds isn’t just possible but would be fairly trivial requiring only the passage of a handful of bills across a handful of major countries, before it spread across the world.
- dangus 3y ago
  Yes I know, the slippery slope was the idea. I was being satirical about the person I responded to, because their idea of an outright ban of personalized content is an incredible overreach. I also disagree that legislation is just that easy. Many proposed laws to restrict social media are unconstitutional under the 1st amendment. And to those who dislike algorithmic feeds I say “speak for yourself.” Banning them would be like banning ESPN because sports are a waste of of time.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

nine_k 3y ago

Look how well does banning specific parts of the internet work in places like Turkey or Russia or India or even China. Look how well did banning of alcohol (which was a really problematic. destructive substance) work in the US. Banning what people crave is a stopgap measure at best, and it increases the popularity of the banned thing because it gives that thing more publicity, even while limiting its availability.

wruza 3y ago
You’re comparing apples to oranges. Totalitarians ban information, not economy, which is weak anyway. When they ban (or get banned), nothing happens. When US bans a social media giant, it immediately loses most of its value. When EU agrees, it goes bankrupt. Look how well specific terms on pornsites were banned. E.g. young or sister.
jstarfish 3y ago
Eradication isn't the point-- disruption is. > it increases the popularity of the banned thing because it gives that thing more publicity Popularity be damned, cocaine doesn't need a publicist. Yet we ban it to maximize the number of hoops people have to jump through to obtain it. As a result, you can only get your hands on so much, and it will cost you. The "ban" rate-limits consumption.
mcpackieh 3y ago
All countries "ban specific parts of the internet" insofar as they have laws that make certain business models illegal and, those businesses being illegal, websites for them don't exist in the first place. For instance, websites to sell your organs are "illegal" in America because buying organs from people isn't a legal business practice in America. That kind of business isn't allowed, therefore that kind of website doesn't exist. So you don't ban social media websites; you ban social media business practices.

autoexec 3y ago

No need to ban social media, but I'd agree that companies should be accountable for what they promote using their own algorithms