4 ms·

As I understand, people should be exposed to the stuff which they disagree with. This creates friction which platforms like Instagram, Tiktok don't like because

As I understand, people should be exposed to the stuff which they disagree with. This creates friction which platforms like Instagram, Tiktok don't like because people hop on to relax and not get their blood boiled. Negative feedback is good. It's a simple reasoning. Even in our brains, we have inhibitory neurons to put breaks on, otherwise we would all be in epileptic storms of neuronal firing. The world is not a utopia which reflects in digital interactions and should be used as data to correct everyone's behaviour rather than impose one viewpoint.

etchalon 3y ago
A product which does things that users don't like "for their own good" isn't a product that is going to attract as many users as one that "does stuff the users like".
- passion__desire 3y ago
  The problem isn't nuanced debate isn't happening on the platform which will benefit everyone but metrics like "likes" which lead to gaming the metrics and race to the bottom. Facebook realized it too late. It is possible for people to benefit from listening to both sides and come out better informed but it is totally impossible to resurface those with primitive metrics like "likes". Hopefully LLMs will allow us to do that better. There should be some top-down handcrafting to steer in better directions. Apparently our brain has both top-down and bottom-up processes which meet at the middle to figure out ground truth.
kstrauser 3y ago
To a point, but not all opinions are worthwhile. I disagree with paleo-Republican fiscal policy, but in an academic "I see what you're getting at but don't think it's correct" way. It's interesting and instructive to have that debate, though. Even if I'm not persuaded, afterward I can appreciate the other person's viewpoints and respect that smart people might come to different conclusions than I do. Some rando spouting that "Jews are taking over the world" or something else ridiculous isn't worth engaging or hearing out. I have no interest in a service exposing me to idiotic opinions like that against my will.
riffic 3y ago
> people should be exposed to the stuff which they disagree with absolutely not. See Michael B. Tager's quote about the nazi bar: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Nazi_bar https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Nazi_bar
wredcoll 3y ago
> This creates friction which platforms like Instagram, Tiktok don't like All evidence seems to contradict this. People love viewing content that makes them mad (ref: fox news) and companies love the engagement they get from mad people.
- passion__desire 3y ago
  My point more was on what kind of platfrom Instagram and Tiktok want themselves to be. Do they see themselves as a way to increase positive feedback of memes and interesting stuff or do they want people to fight within their walled garden. I have found lot of accounts making funny memes about serious topics and the comments are hilarious as well. So maybe these accounts are trying to be Colbert Report or Jon Stewart's Daily Show.

etchalon 3y ago

A product which does things that users don't like "for their own good" isn't a product that is going to attract as many users as one that "does stuff the users like".

passion__desire 3y ago
The problem isn't nuanced debate isn't happening on the platform which will benefit everyone but metrics like "likes" which lead to gaming the metrics and race to the bottom. Facebook realized it too late. It is possible for people to benefit from listening to both sides and come out better informed but it is totally impossible to resurface those with primitive metrics like "likes". Hopefully LLMs will allow us to do that better. There should be some top-down handcrafting to steer in better directions. Apparently our brain has both top-down and bottom-up processes which meet at the middle to figure out ground truth.

kstrauser 3y ago

To a point, but not all opinions are worthwhile. I disagree with paleo-Republican fiscal policy, but in an academic "I see what you're getting at but don't think it's correct" way. It's interesting and instructive to have that debate, though. Even if I'm not persuaded, afterward I can appreciate the other person's viewpoints and respect that smart people might come to different conclusions than I do. Some rando spouting that "Jews are taking over the world" or something else ridiculous isn't worth engaging or hearing out. I have no interest in a service exposing me to idiotic opinions like that against my will.

riffic 3y ago

> people should be exposed to the stuff which they disagree with absolutely not. See Michael B. Tager's quote about the nazi bar: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Nazi_bar https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Nazi_bar

wredcoll 3y ago

> This creates friction which platforms like Instagram, Tiktok don't like All evidence seems to contradict this. People love viewing content that makes them mad (ref: fox news) and companies love the engagement they get from mad people.

passion__desire 3y ago
My point more was on what kind of platfrom Instagram and Tiktok want themselves to be. Do they see themselves as a way to increase positive feedback of memes and interesting stuff or do they want people to fight within their walled garden. I have found lot of accounts making funny memes about serious topics and the comments are hilarious as well. So maybe these accounts are trying to be Colbert Report or Jon Stewart's Daily Show.