3 ms·

What did you mean stop blaming the users? You mean that the firms are incentivized to show outrage inducing content to gain attention? If so, that’s also NOT

What did you mean stop blaming the users? You mean that the firms are incentivized to show outrage inducing content to gain attention? If so, that’s also NOT the problem with firms. You, me, and everyone with a phone is in some form of information and attention war. Or over farming situation. - There is a competitive process for attention - What is crazy today is boring tomorrow, as people get desensitized - all content competes with all other content, for the little working memory that people have. Personally I describe it as a gearing ratio issue. We have one small gear which is everyone’s short term attention. In the mean time, we have a larger gear which is the content cycle. This gear is spinning faster and faster as the velocity of content generation increases. Anyone who takes a stand to slow down or make their content less attractive, will get out-competed by more competitive content. Any moderation of this process breaks the lay definition of free speech. So you have a runaway effect where the content must get more outrageous. This isn’t the fault of anyone, but a fundamental problem when free speech meets faster and faster content creation tools. We’re at the point where GenAI slop will simply out compete everything, and grow everywhere like a weed. I’m telling people I know that you have to give up on facts, the signal to noise ratio of the future is going to be hopelessly poor. Instead, you will have to make do with whatever content you are looking at, and focus on the techniques which you use to interact with the content or people. Its hard to blame a singular firm for this, when anyone who takes a stand will be crushed by the wheel of competition and free-speech.

cardanome 2y ago
Competition? The social network market is split between a few big monopolists that will buy up or destroy any new upstart. And even if we assume a free market, I don't follow your logic. Twitter has vastly more lax moderation since Elon Musk took over and people are LEAVING it. It clearly shows that many users actually prefer better moderated platforms.
- intended 2y ago
  The underlying competition I am referring to is the competition for attention. —— Yet, if we are too look at firms, TikTok came on the scene and at everyone’s lunch, till they came up with clones. Your example, Bluesky, is also competition. ——- The fact that people are leaving Nazis doesn’t mean that people are somehow escaping the battle for attention. See for example, the radicalization of the left which has finally accelerated enough to be its own force. Given enough time, Bluesky will also find that its users must deal with the same forces. If you want content to succeed on Bsky, you need to get eyeballs, which means you need to compete with other things people will watch. —— You also missed the part that moderation construes a violation of the popular definition of “Free speech”, and is thus censorship. I know it’s nonsense. I used to run a boring community; people eventually leave or start importing drama from the more active parts of the web. You have to tamp down on that, which results in the “violation of free speech”. So you now have pressures to stop moderation. Heck, Wikipedia is being targeted, senators are bankrupting misinformation researchers, all to ensure that they are able to maintain the lowest level of moderation possible. People need to wise up to the point of free speech, i.e. ensuring the functioning of a market place of ideas.
AlecSchueler 2y ago
This is like talking about tobacco companies and saying there is a competition for bodily health and that youngsters should make a better effort not to become addicted because it isn't the fault of poor Phillip Morris that they have to spend millions on aggressive advertising campaigns.

cardanome 2y ago

Competition? The social network market is split between a few big monopolists that will buy up or destroy any new upstart. And even if we assume a free market, I don't follow your logic. Twitter has vastly more lax moderation since Elon Musk took over and people are LEAVING it. It clearly shows that many users actually prefer better moderated platforms.

intended 2y ago
The underlying competition I am referring to is the competition for attention. —— Yet, if we are too look at firms, TikTok came on the scene and at everyone’s lunch, till they came up with clones. Your example, Bluesky, is also competition. ——- The fact that people are leaving Nazis doesn’t mean that people are somehow escaping the battle for attention. See for example, the radicalization of the left which has finally accelerated enough to be its own force. Given enough time, Bluesky will also find that its users must deal with the same forces. If you want content to succeed on Bsky, you need to get eyeballs, which means you need to compete with other things people will watch. —— You also missed the part that moderation construes a violation of the popular definition of “Free speech”, and is thus censorship. I know it’s nonsense. I used to run a boring community; people eventually leave or start importing drama from the more active parts of the web. You have to tamp down on that, which results in the “violation of free speech”. So you now have pressures to stop moderation. Heck, Wikipedia is being targeted, senators are bankrupting misinformation researchers, all to ensure that they are able to maintain the lowest level of moderation possible. People need to wise up to the point of free speech, i.e. ensuring the functioning of a market place of ideas.

AlecSchueler 2y ago

This is like talking about tobacco companies and saying there is a competition for bodily health and that youngsters should make a better effort not to become addicted because it isn't the fault of poor Phillip Morris that they have to spend millions on aggressive advertising campaigns.