3 ms·

The internet seems to be a really good tool for sliding some people into ideologies of hate. If you could avoid or correct that course, like at an architectura

The internet seems to be a really good tool for sliding some people into ideologies of hate. If you could avoid or correct that course, like at an architectural and protocol level that'd fix a big problem of the internet. I'd only accept that it's not possible if someone could somehow demonstrate a logical proof (such as, presume a system existed, then prove by contradiction that it's not possible, etc). That would be an achievement in itself.

calny 3y ago
Great answer. Related: attention hijacking. There's so much online psychological manipulation that manipulates people's attention and intentionality.
cinntaile 3y ago
I doubt the solution to ideologies of hate is blocking them at the architectural or protocol level. That sounds just as dystopic, if not more.
- calny 3y ago
  I agree but I don't think the suggestion was to block ideologies. Rather, change the online ecosystem to stop driving people toward rage. How to do it is another question.
- kristopolous 3y ago
  blocking wasn't the suggestion. It was the identification of the problem. It's a complex and sophisticated topic. Mass shootings that start with people being radicalized by some kind of online patterns and systems is certainly a problem worth trying to fundamentally tackle somehow. I've got no fixes so that's why I mentioned it.
  - cinntaile 3y ago
    I see, then I misunderstood. My bad
Const-me 3y ago
The problem is specific to advertisements on the internet, and modern social media enabled by them. Ad companies have strong financial incentive to maximize user engagement. Over time, they discovered the best way to achieve that is promoting outrage culture. Angry people generate tons of clicks, page views, and comments. Before mass advertisements, content providers paid for bandwidth instead of earning money per views. I don’t believe internet had such polarizing effect back then.
- kristopolous 3y ago
  I think it's more complicated. You'll find lots of really organized and popular hate groups in telegram channels, on tor and other places where there is no real advertisement model. Back in the Usenet and BBS days there were lots of online hate stuff. https://timeline.com/white-supremacist-early-internet-5e91676eb847 https://timeline.com/white-supremacist-early-internet-5e9167... There's something deeper about the medium, structure, engagement - it's complicated but it also might be solvable somehow.
  - Const-me 3y ago
    I agree the hate was always there, but this was equally true even before any internets. I don’t think it’s possible to do anything about that. Arresting all these people, or censoring their speech, or banning them from the internet is IMO less than ideal. Still, before the modern internet infested with ads, there was no incentive for platforms to actively promote these polarizing views. The opposite was true, because network bandwidth costed them money. Modern internet ecosystem does just that, at great scale. No longer these are small groups general population is unaware about and not interested in. The polarizing content is now actively promoted by both mainstream media, and huge social media platforms. It’s so profitable they can’t resist, and their shareholders don’t care about the externalities it causes to the general public. These externalities of ad tech aren’t limited to political polarization. For social media, mental health is another major one. Teenagers are especially vulnerable, and it seems there’s strong correlation between mental health and social media use. Here’s some article about the topic: https://www.newportacademy.com/resources/well-being/effect-of-social-media-on-teenagers/ https://www.newportacademy.com/resources/well-being/effect-o...
jwarden 3y ago
I think it's possible. We're working on the problem of protocol-level solutions here: https://social-protocols.org/ https://social-protocols.org/

calny 3y ago

Great answer. Related: attention hijacking. There's so much online psychological manipulation that manipulates people's attention and intentionality.

cinntaile 3y ago

I doubt the solution to ideologies of hate is blocking them at the architectural or protocol level. That sounds just as dystopic, if not more.

calny 3y ago
I agree but I don't think the suggestion was to block ideologies. Rather, change the online ecosystem to stop driving people toward rage. How to do it is another question.
kristopolous 3y ago
blocking wasn't the suggestion. It was the identification of the problem. It's a complex and sophisticated topic. Mass shootings that start with people being radicalized by some kind of online patterns and systems is certainly a problem worth trying to fundamentally tackle somehow. I've got no fixes so that's why I mentioned it.
- cinntaile 3y ago
  I see, then I misunderstood. My bad

Const-me 3y ago

The problem is specific to advertisements on the internet, and modern social media enabled by them. Ad companies have strong financial incentive to maximize user engagement. Over time, they discovered the best way to achieve that is promoting outrage culture. Angry people generate tons of clicks, page views, and comments. Before mass advertisements, content providers paid for bandwidth instead of earning money per views. I don’t believe internet had such polarizing effect back then.

kristopolous 3y ago
I think it's more complicated. You'll find lots of really organized and popular hate groups in telegram channels, on tor and other places where there is no real advertisement model. Back in the Usenet and BBS days there were lots of online hate stuff. https://timeline.com/white-supremacist-early-internet-5e91676eb847 https://timeline.com/white-supremacist-early-internet-5e9167... There's something deeper about the medium, structure, engagement - it's complicated but it also might be solvable somehow.
- Const-me 3y ago
  I agree the hate was always there, but this was equally true even before any internets. I don’t think it’s possible to do anything about that. Arresting all these people, or censoring their speech, or banning them from the internet is IMO less than ideal. Still, before the modern internet infested with ads, there was no incentive for platforms to actively promote these polarizing views. The opposite was true, because network bandwidth costed them money. Modern internet ecosystem does just that, at great scale. No longer these are small groups general population is unaware about and not interested in. The polarizing content is now actively promoted by both mainstream media, and huge social media platforms. It’s so profitable they can’t resist, and their shareholders don’t care about the externalities it causes to the general public. These externalities of ad tech aren’t limited to political polarization. For social media, mental health is another major one. Teenagers are especially vulnerable, and it seems there’s strong correlation between mental health and social media use. Here’s some article about the topic: https://www.newportacademy.com/resources/well-being/effect-of-social-media-on-teenagers/ https://www.newportacademy.com/resources/well-being/effect-o...

jwarden 3y ago

I think it's possible. We're working on the problem of protocol-level solutions here: https://social-protocols.org/ https://social-protocols.org/