4 ms·

Social media is like that because it was deliberately designed to be addictive and we have a decade of documentation to back that up.

mrweasel 3y ago
That is something I've been think about, what if social media wasn't designed to be addictive? There shouldn't be anything inherently wrong in keeping in contact with your high school buddies on Facebook, so what if all the doom scrolling, likes, and corporate profiles where removed from Facebook? Would it be safer? I think there's are huge risk that we are about to realize that either social media cannot be made safe, at all, or that it has been made dangerous in order to make a profit. Either way is terrifying and should lead to a larger skepticism of new technology. The horrible reality of social media, and the ad funded Internet is what has fueled my reluctance to accept crypto currency and AI into my life, as much as it is within my control to do so.
- dahart 3y ago
  > There shouldn't be anything inherently wrong in keeping in contact with your high school buddies on Facebook I’m curious, what if there is something inherently wrong with having too many superficial connections? What if it’s replacing all deep connections, and part of the reason people are feeling unfulfilled?
  - tivert 3y ago
    > I’m curious, what if there is something inherently wrong with having too many superficial connections? What if it’s replacing all deep connections, and part of the reason people are feeling unfulfilled? Or maybe there's also a problem with social media removing friction. E.g. I want to find out what my old high-school buddy is up to, but instead of meeting up of having a phone call, his updates are pushed to my feed, removing the impetus for real social contact. Software engineers can be weird people (e.g. hyper-introverted) who are averse to thinking through the impacts of the technology they're building. Then there are entrepreneurs whose search for successful products effectively turns them into psychopaths. These are the people who are architecting our society.
- api 3y ago
  Social media in the late 2000s was basically this. It was before they really figured out how to super-charge the addictiveness. I remember it and it was a lot less toxic.
  - groby_b 3y ago
    Media in large groups was always toxic. BBSes were, once they exceeded a certain size threshold. Usenet had its toxic corners. Large IRC channels without strong moderators were a hellscape. There are two ingredients to toxicity, as far as I can tell. One is sheer size of a group - you get a million people in a room, you have 1000 assholes of a 1-in-a-1000 caliber in there. It's a pure numbers game. The second is strong moderation. Moderation that actively intercedes at the first sign of toxicity keeps group conversations less toxic. (For the free speech argument here: I believe we're better off with moderated groups as long as everybody is free to run their own moderated group. Everybody is free to speak, but the rest of the world must be free to choose to not listen - this is where big social media really fails) Ask Metafilter made the point that possibly "cost of entry" might help as well, but I strongly believe that's ultimately the size argument combined with selection bias reducing the need for moderation. So what you remember as "less toxic" might well just be "social media was smaller back then". Or more selective groups.
- smolder 3y ago
  Social media not designed to be addictive includes hacker news and PHP bulletin boards. Early Facebook might qualify as a relatively unaddictive UX as well, though they quickly started with the "optimizations".
- sirsinsalot 3y ago
  There's nothing inherently "wrong" with communication, which at its simplest form is what "social media" is. It is just communication, with media. We have had this for a long while. The difference came when the businesses started optimising for engagement rather than happiness or connectedness to friends. Using engagement, which drives ad revenue, as the metric for success means you design a system that is addictive. The issue is optimising for engagement because humans are hardwired to find certain things moreish. Our dopamine system is easily abused and hijacked. Digital communication is good. Engagement optimisation is bad. This means businesses need another model of revenue outside ad revenue, which sadly is the most profitable. At a lower level, capitalism thrives on over-consumption. Fast fashion, doom scrolling, high-waste food produce supply chains; it's all over-consumption that takes advantage of human psychology to fuel energy gradients from which profits can be found as cash transits across the gradient as people expend energy maintaining it. This might sound reductive, but until we realise that sustainability in ALL things is very important, and we built that into consumer mindset, we will keep being hijacked on every front. The question is, how do we design things that are SUSTAINABLE from revenue to user psychology? Given that we can't collectively manage to do that to save our own planet, I don't hold much hope in us even looking for an answer. The system is broken. Sustainability isn't profitable. Humans are myopic.
- johnchristopher 3y ago
  > I think there's are huge risk that we are about to realize that either social media cannot be made safe, at all, or that it has been made dangerous in order to make a profit. People have been screaming that at the top of their lungs for years.
  - mrweasel 3y ago
    But what do we do with that information? Un-invent social media, ban it? How would such a ban work and what should it cover? At this point I feel like we should pick a time in history, say the late 1930s or 1940s, somewhere around there, and use that as a frame of reference. Any new technology would be assessed based on the value added to average persons life, vs. the overall cost to society and the planet. Only if it hit a certain threshold is it to be implemented. Social media is out right away, negative impact on individual and society and provide little value that postcards and "letters from the readers" didn't already cover.
    - alamortsubite 3y ago
      In broad terms, you've basically described the Amish.
    - wharvle 3y ago
      Banning dragnet spying and/or making retaining data about people very risky, has some chance of killing algorithm-feed social media (by drying up ad dollars) and would be a good thing to do anyway. Making companies liable not for content they host or deliver/show to an explicit recipient or set of recipients, but for content they both host and actively elect to promote, would kill the algorithm feed, suggested videos, et c, but not ordinary Internet hosting services or messaging platforms (or even traditional forums!). Neither is impossible, and either would probably be good to do anyway. If the core problem is companies shoving shit at you based on what drives "engagement" and with little regard for anything else, those are policies to look at.
    - jampekka 3y ago
      Just banning more or less all advertising would probably do the trick. In general advertising and marketing are an even bigger problem for mental health too.
grupthink 3y ago
Agreed. It's like dining out versus having a healthy home cooked meal. Restaurants will sell you delicious food loaded with sodium, sugar, and fat because they want you to crave their food. Likewise, when you outsource your family values, entertainment, news to social media, you meet a similar problem. Relatedly, beware of the hidden ads in social media. It takes much less money to astroturf a community like reddit than to advertise through conventional means (e.g. commercials, product placements, banner ads). You may be aware of ads on youtube, but you may not be aware of the ads in the comment section. I've seen youtube comments as follows: Ed: Christ! My stock portfolio has gone down so much since the pandemic... it hurts. Bob: Mine did too, however in the past year I've been able to recover financially. Ed: Really? Please help me, how did you recover your losses? Bob: I'd hate to share my secret, but Jonathon Harris provided me with amazing investment tips. Sal: Mr. Jonathon Harris helped 10X our portfolio! You can reach him at jonharris@gmail.com </ad scam> That was my re-enactment of their discussion. Sure, that was an example of an obvious ad. But think of all the times you read a conversation about a product or service and became convinced to try something just based on a conversation between two supposed strangers online? I've never bought anything from a conventional ad, but I've purchased plenty of things after reading what the socials say about a product, and that makes me ashamed of myself. Word of mouth is effective for a reason, but it's insidious online. And that's where they get you. Steel your mind, when online.
- jprete 3y ago
  All this can go to 100x with generative AI, unfortunately. I don't even know anymore where to get reliable information about...anything.
- trealira 3y ago
  What's worse is that people do genuinely advertise products they like, so it's hard to tell if a conversation is astroturfing. I've done the same thing. I see it particularly for video games and software. There's a meme about how Hollow Knight fans advertise it so much that they suggest you play Hollow Knight even if you were asking about a completely different genre.
- avgcorrection 3y ago

mrweasel 3y ago

That is something I've been think about, what if social media wasn't designed to be addictive? There shouldn't be anything inherently wrong in keeping in contact with your high school buddies on Facebook, so what if all the doom scrolling, likes, and corporate profiles where removed from Facebook? Would it be safer? I think there's are huge risk that we are about to realize that either social media cannot be made safe, at all, or that it has been made dangerous in order to make a profit. Either way is terrifying and should lead to a larger skepticism of new technology. The horrible reality of social media, and the ad funded Internet is what has fueled my reluctance to accept crypto currency and AI into my life, as much as it is within my control to do so.

dahart 3y ago
> There shouldn't be anything inherently wrong in keeping in contact with your high school buddies on Facebook I’m curious, what if there is something inherently wrong with having too many superficial connections? What if it’s replacing all deep connections, and part of the reason people are feeling unfulfilled?
- tivert 3y ago
  > I’m curious, what if there is something inherently wrong with having too many superficial connections? What if it’s replacing all deep connections, and part of the reason people are feeling unfulfilled? Or maybe there's also a problem with social media removing friction. E.g. I want to find out what my old high-school buddy is up to, but instead of meeting up of having a phone call, his updates are pushed to my feed, removing the impetus for real social contact. Software engineers can be weird people (e.g. hyper-introverted) who are averse to thinking through the impacts of the technology they're building. Then there are entrepreneurs whose search for successful products effectively turns them into psychopaths. These are the people who are architecting our society.
api 3y ago
Social media in the late 2000s was basically this. It was before they really figured out how to super-charge the addictiveness. I remember it and it was a lot less toxic.
- groby_b 3y ago
  Media in large groups was always toxic. BBSes were, once they exceeded a certain size threshold. Usenet had its toxic corners. Large IRC channels without strong moderators were a hellscape. There are two ingredients to toxicity, as far as I can tell. One is sheer size of a group - you get a million people in a room, you have 1000 assholes of a 1-in-a-1000 caliber in there. It's a pure numbers game. The second is strong moderation. Moderation that actively intercedes at the first sign of toxicity keeps group conversations less toxic. (For the free speech argument here: I believe we're better off with moderated groups as long as everybody is free to run their own moderated group. Everybody is free to speak, but the rest of the world must be free to choose to not listen - this is where big social media really fails) Ask Metafilter made the point that possibly "cost of entry" might help as well, but I strongly believe that's ultimately the size argument combined with selection bias reducing the need for moderation. So what you remember as "less toxic" might well just be "social media was smaller back then". Or more selective groups.
smolder 3y ago
Social media not designed to be addictive includes hacker news and PHP bulletin boards. Early Facebook might qualify as a relatively unaddictive UX as well, though they quickly started with the "optimizations".
sirsinsalot 3y ago
There's nothing inherently "wrong" with communication, which at its simplest form is what "social media" is. It is just communication, with media. We have had this for a long while. The difference came when the businesses started optimising for engagement rather than happiness or connectedness to friends. Using engagement, which drives ad revenue, as the metric for success means you design a system that is addictive. The issue is optimising for engagement because humans are hardwired to find certain things moreish. Our dopamine system is easily abused and hijacked. Digital communication is good. Engagement optimisation is bad. This means businesses need another model of revenue outside ad revenue, which sadly is the most profitable. At a lower level, capitalism thrives on over-consumption. Fast fashion, doom scrolling, high-waste food produce supply chains; it's all over-consumption that takes advantage of human psychology to fuel energy gradients from which profits can be found as cash transits across the gradient as people expend energy maintaining it. This might sound reductive, but until we realise that sustainability in ALL things is very important, and we built that into consumer mindset, we will keep being hijacked on every front. The question is, how do we design things that are SUSTAINABLE from revenue to user psychology? Given that we can't collectively manage to do that to save our own planet, I don't hold much hope in us even looking for an answer. The system is broken. Sustainability isn't profitable. Humans are myopic.
johnchristopher 3y ago
> I think there's are huge risk that we are about to realize that either social media cannot be made safe, at all, or that it has been made dangerous in order to make a profit. People have been screaming that at the top of their lungs for years.
- mrweasel 3y ago
  But what do we do with that information? Un-invent social media, ban it? How would such a ban work and what should it cover? At this point I feel like we should pick a time in history, say the late 1930s or 1940s, somewhere around there, and use that as a frame of reference. Any new technology would be assessed based on the value added to average persons life, vs. the overall cost to society and the planet. Only if it hit a certain threshold is it to be implemented. Social media is out right away, negative impact on individual and society and provide little value that postcards and "letters from the readers" didn't already cover.
  - alamortsubite 3y ago
    In broad terms, you've basically described the Amish.
  - wharvle 3y ago
    Banning dragnet spying and/or making retaining data about people very risky, has some chance of killing algorithm-feed social media (by drying up ad dollars) and would be a good thing to do anyway. Making companies liable not for content they host or deliver/show to an explicit recipient or set of recipients, but for content they both host and actively elect to promote, would kill the algorithm feed, suggested videos, et c, but not ordinary Internet hosting services or messaging platforms (or even traditional forums!). Neither is impossible, and either would probably be good to do anyway. If the core problem is companies shoving shit at you based on what drives "engagement" and with little regard for anything else, those are policies to look at.
  - jampekka 3y ago
    Just banning more or less all advertising would probably do the trick. In general advertising and marketing are an even bigger problem for mental health too.

grupthink 3y ago

Agreed. It's like dining out versus having a healthy home cooked meal. Restaurants will sell you delicious food loaded with sodium, sugar, and fat because they want you to crave their food. Likewise, when you outsource your family values, entertainment, news to social media, you meet a similar problem. Relatedly, beware of the hidden ads in social media. It takes much less money to astroturf a community like reddit than to advertise through conventional means (e.g. commercials, product placements, banner ads). You may be aware of ads on youtube, but you may not be aware of the ads in the comment section. I've seen youtube comments as follows: Ed: Christ! My stock portfolio has gone down so much since the pandemic... it hurts. Bob: Mine did too, however in the past year I've been able to recover financially. Ed: Really? Please help me, how did you recover your losses? Bob: I'd hate to share my secret, but Jonathon Harris provided me with amazing investment tips. Sal: Mr. Jonathon Harris helped 10X our portfolio! You can reach him at jonharris@gmail.com </ad scam> That was my re-enactment of their discussion. Sure, that was an example of an obvious ad. But think of all the times you read a conversation about a product or service and became convinced to try something just based on a conversation between two supposed strangers online? I've never bought anything from a conventional ad, but I've purchased plenty of things after reading what the socials say about a product, and that makes me ashamed of myself. Word of mouth is effective for a reason, but it's insidious online. And that's where they get you. Steel your mind, when online.

jprete 3y ago
All this can go to 100x with generative AI, unfortunately. I don't even know anymore where to get reliable information about...anything.
trealira 3y ago
What's worse is that people do genuinely advertise products they like, so it's hard to tell if a conversation is astroturfing. I've done the same thing. I see it particularly for video games and software. There's a meme about how Hollow Knight fans advertise it so much that they suggest you play Hollow Knight even if you were asking about a completely different genre.
avgcorrection 3y ago