3 ms·

While this article doesn’t directly mention ads or algorithmic feeds, in my opinion, the dynamic it describes feels deeply tied to them. The internet’s shift t

by ednite 1y ago

While this article doesn’t directly mention ads or algorithmic feeds, in my opinion, the dynamic it describes feels deeply tied to them. The internet’s shift toward tribal, memetic behavior isn’t just cultural, it’s deeply structural and driven by how platforms make money from engagement. Feeds optimized for engagement and ad revenue naturally favor ideas that are fast, emotional, and identity-driven. The more transmissible the idea, the greater its reach. Slower, non-viral ideas don’t stand a chance in that environment. To me, the architecture of targeting and personalization isn’t just mirroring tribalism, it’s reinforcing and accelerating it. Maybe the future of meaningful discourse online isn’t about better moderation or more facts, it’s about redesigning the incentives entirely. Until we change what the system rewards, unfortunately, we’ll keep getting more of what spreads, not what matters.

growlNark 1y ago
> The internet’s shift toward tribal, memetic behavior I don't actually see the internet as very tribal at all compared to meatspace; in fact, I see it as one of the, if not the most, anti-tribalist force to have ever existed as a force in the general population. I just think it's hard to see sometimes through all the discourse about how many parts of the internet are built to manipulate us, and how starkly obvious and disturbing mob mentality is when you see it on a daily basis. But that's not, and never was, the majority of the behavior and interactions you're bound to run into unless what you like is fighting with people on social media. But even I, a bastard as cynical as anyone, can see how we managed and continue to manage to form relationships across nominally tribal boundaries in spite of not making anyone money. Of course the internet is memetic; but then again, so is all human culture I've ever witnessed. I think that's a neutral thing at worst.
- ednite 1y ago
  Well said. I’m just pointing out that platforms aren’t really designed to promote meaningful interactions, they’re designed to keep us engaged and clicking. And because of that, it’s hard for thoughtful, meaningful content to really thrive in that kind of system.
  - growlNark 1y ago
    Yup. "Platforms" are a very shallow expression of the internet's social and economic potential. Unfortunately, I don't see a great way to reverse this dynamic. Thoughtful, meaningful content tends to contradict the tenets of mass media. I think we just gotta carve out the spaces for ourselves that we want and accept the rest.
1vuio0pswjnm7 1y ago
These so-called "tech" companies would have people believe that "this is what people want" and they are just giving it to them. But if people want something that has little to no value in the online ad services business, and there are countless examples of such things, then the so-called "tech" companies may refuse to deliver it, or more likely, they may choose to rearrange what is delivered such that the content most useful to the online advertising services business is delivered first and displayed prominantly, with the rest hidden or difficult to find. Several days ago there was an HN comment arguing that the www needs curation. The www has "curation". This is performed by so-called "tech" companies operating as unnecessary intermediaries in the inteerests of collecting data and selling online ad services. Maybe this is not of the kind of "curation" that www users want. It is "curation" (or "filtering", "moderation", or what ever one choose to call it) nonetheless._ To use a silly analogy, consider billbooards. Billboard companies may be useful for their role in information distribution. The public pays nothing for this "service". But billboards are not free. Advertisers pay to use them. The information displayed on billboards is generally commercial in nature. The public pays for roads, not the billboard companies. The public does not drive on these roads to see billboards, the roads have other, more important utility. The billboard companies piggyback on a public resource: roadways. The www and the internet in general has utility other than as a medium or vector for collecting data surreptitiously and disseminating advertising. Silicon Valley's so-called "tech" company intermediaries offer "services" that make the internet "easier to use" and are marketed as "free". But like billboards, the intermediaries' computer systems are not free. Advertisers pay for these ad services systems. The public pays for the internet to which they connect and use as a medium//vector. The intermediaries piggyback on a public resource: the internet. Perhaps the public has forgotten the utility of the internet without advertising. Trillion dollar "billboard companies" have made the public forget about the public resource that they are paying for. Imagine if, pre-internet, every road was lined from start to finish with billboards and billboard companies tracked drivers everywhere they travelled. The roads work fine without billboards. The internet works fine without advertising. But the online advertising services industry, the trillion dollar "billboard companies", i.e., Silicon Valley, disagrees.
- 1vuio0pswjnm7 1y ago
  s/prominant/prominent/
intended 1y ago
Yes and no, and I’m going to constantly plug network propaganda because it’s the easiest way to point this out. I suppose the shorter version is to hear out the section where Rob Faris speaks in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGTmuHeFdAo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGTmuHeFdAo. The very clear finding is that the issue isn’t the algorithm its in the information production systems on the left+center vs right. On the right, crucially - sense is made by first having a narrative, getting it amplified by major voices, and then seeking out facts to support it. Counter views do exist, but they dont get amplified. On the Left+center we have your typical media and information economy which we think everyone is a part of. Ie you get punished for having the facts wrong or being inaccurate. The right is about looking like they are smart, but primarily about selling narratives. —— There IS also a problem with the algorithms, in that it creates a fitness function that highly emotional and engaging content survives better than boring and long form content. Or more precisely, highly emotional and engaging content spreads more. But since reach, time on site, etc, are linked with advertising revenue they are essentially conflated with economic viability. The exact linkage though, is a change in the content consumption mix of humans. Humans have only N hours of content they will consume in a day, and some % of that time will be allocated to high cognitive load, kinda-boring content. Your market will be smaller, but there is a sliver of a market that does exist. It’s just that the effort to payout here, is not as effective as making content that gets more views. Yes, it describes the same process, just with extra steps, but each of these steps is a different place which can be approached to alleviate the issue of engagement vs accuracy.

by ednite 1y ago

growlNark 1y ago

> The internet’s shift toward tribal, memetic behavior I don't actually see the internet as very tribal at all compared to meatspace; in fact, I see it as one of the, if not the most, anti-tribalist force to have ever existed as a force in the general population. I just think it's hard to see sometimes through all the discourse about how many parts of the internet are built to manipulate us, and how starkly obvious and disturbing mob mentality is when you see it on a daily basis. But that's not, and never was, the majority of the behavior and interactions you're bound to run into unless what you like is fighting with people on social media. But even I, a bastard as cynical as anyone, can see how we managed and continue to manage to form relationships across nominally tribal boundaries in spite of not making anyone money. Of course the internet is memetic; but then again, so is all human culture I've ever witnessed. I think that's a neutral thing at worst.

ednite 1y ago
Well said. I’m just pointing out that platforms aren’t really designed to promote meaningful interactions, they’re designed to keep us engaged and clicking. And because of that, it’s hard for thoughtful, meaningful content to really thrive in that kind of system.
- growlNark 1y ago
  Yup. "Platforms" are a very shallow expression of the internet's social and economic potential. Unfortunately, I don't see a great way to reverse this dynamic. Thoughtful, meaningful content tends to contradict the tenets of mass media. I think we just gotta carve out the spaces for ourselves that we want and accept the rest.

1vuio0pswjnm7 1y ago

These so-called "tech" companies would have people believe that "this is what people want" and they are just giving it to them. But if people want something that has little to no value in the online ad services business, and there are countless examples of such things, then the so-called "tech" companies may refuse to deliver it, or more likely, they may choose to rearrange what is delivered such that the content most useful to the online advertising services business is delivered first and displayed prominantly, with the rest hidden or difficult to find. Several days ago there was an HN comment arguing that the www needs curation. The www has "curation". This is performed by so-called "tech" companies operating as unnecessary intermediaries in the inteerests of collecting data and selling online ad services. Maybe this is not of the kind of "curation" that www users want. It is "curation" (or "filtering", "moderation", or what ever one choose to call it) nonetheless._ To use a silly analogy, consider billbooards. Billboard companies may be useful for their role in information distribution. The public pays nothing for this "service". But billboards are not free. Advertisers pay to use them. The information displayed on billboards is generally commercial in nature. The public pays for roads, not the billboard companies. The public does not drive on these roads to see billboards, the roads have other, more important utility. The billboard companies piggyback on a public resource: roadways. The www and the internet in general has utility other than as a medium or vector for collecting data surreptitiously and disseminating advertising. Silicon Valley's so-called "tech" company intermediaries offer "services" that make the internet "easier to use" and are marketed as "free". But like billboards, the intermediaries' computer systems are not free. Advertisers pay for these ad services systems. The public pays for the internet to which they connect and use as a medium//vector. The intermediaries piggyback on a public resource: the internet. Perhaps the public has forgotten the utility of the internet without advertising. Trillion dollar "billboard companies" have made the public forget about the public resource that they are paying for. Imagine if, pre-internet, every road was lined from start to finish with billboards and billboard companies tracked drivers everywhere they travelled. The roads work fine without billboards. The internet works fine without advertising. But the online advertising services industry, the trillion dollar "billboard companies", i.e., Silicon Valley, disagrees.

1vuio0pswjnm7 1y ago
s/prominant/prominent/

intended 1y ago

Yes and no, and I’m going to constantly plug network propaganda because it’s the easiest way to point this out. I suppose the shorter version is to hear out the section where Rob Faris speaks in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGTmuHeFdAo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGTmuHeFdAo. The very clear finding is that the issue isn’t the algorithm its in the information production systems on the left+center vs right. On the right, crucially - sense is made by first having a narrative, getting it amplified by major voices, and then seeking out facts to support it. Counter views do exist, but they dont get amplified. On the Left+center we have your typical media and information economy which we think everyone is a part of. Ie you get punished for having the facts wrong or being inaccurate. The right is about looking like they are smart, but primarily about selling narratives. —— There IS also a problem with the algorithms, in that it creates a fitness function that highly emotional and engaging content survives better than boring and long form content. Or more precisely, highly emotional and engaging content spreads more. But since reach, time on site, etc, are linked with advertising revenue they are essentially conflated with economic viability. The exact linkage though, is a change in the content consumption mix of humans. Humans have only N hours of content they will consume in a day, and some % of that time will be allocated to high cognitive load, kinda-boring content. Your market will be smaller, but there is a sliver of a market that does exist. It’s just that the effort to payout here, is not as effective as making content that gets more views. Yes, it describes the same process, just with extra steps, but each of these steps is a different place which can be approached to alleviate the issue of engagement vs accuracy.