3 ms·

I'd rather just a full blanket ban on social media, but I guess it's something. Social media is basically what cigarettes were in the 50s: everyone uses it, an

I'd rather just a full blanket ban on social media, but I guess it's something. Social media is basically what cigarettes were in the 50s: everyone uses it, and seemingly no one is aware of how it is almost entirely bad.

russdill 1y ago
All this does if make things worse. Things like banning the sale of personal information would be a step in the right direction.
- andrekandre 1y ago
  > Things like banning the sale of personal information would be a step in the right direction. it really seems like its the business model that is the real issue. especially with regards to algorithms favoring "engagement" which leads to promotion of rage-baiting and concern-trolling among many other pathological contents.
- infotainment 1y ago
  I suspect social media's biggest problems (engagement bait, brainrot, echo chambers, etc), would generally not be fixed even with a ban on sale of personal data.
123yawaworht456 1y ago
you're on a social medium right now.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- IAmBroom 1y ago
  Madge: "You're soaking in it."
gjvnq 1y ago
A big issue here would be defining social media. Are forums social media? What about reddit? What about YouTube? I think what we really need is a ban on algorithmic recommendations that seek to encourage engagement or total time spent on the app.
- infotainment 1y ago
  I think this is a reasonable take; a good start would be banning all forms of algorithmic "discovery" recommendations, and things like "for you" feeds.
- Spivak 1y ago
  Yes, yes, and yes. You picked basically the three most obvious examples of social media. Is it a site that hosts user generated content and makes that content available to others in any 1-n fashion? Great, you have social media.
  - t-writescode 1y ago
    Is a group chat? Is Discord? What if the Discord invite link is public?
- terribleperson 1y ago
  My take would be something like this: Any public or public-ish website, or website with more than x user which presents algorithmically sorted or curated content must make readily available the source feed for their algorithms as well as any other information they use. On any page where algorithmically sorted or curated content is presented, they must fully describe the algorithm used. Ditto anywhere you select an algorithm or navigate to an algorithmically curated or sorted page - it must be described fully in the button or selector, or adjacent to it. If that is impractical for space reasons, it should be described as best as possible with footnotes expanding on the explanation. Furthermore, the explanation, source feed, and additional information should be complete and clear such that someone could reasonably recreate a page or sorting given the algorithm, source feed, and additional info. This would be the test used in court if someone alleged infringement. My hope is that such a law would heavily bias sites towards simple, less manipulative algorithms.
Vilian 1y ago
It's based on the European one
IAmBroom 1y ago
Ironic that you're effectively dragging on a cig as you type that. Metaphorically speaking.

russdill 1y ago

All this does if make things worse. Things like banning the sale of personal information would be a step in the right direction.

andrekandre 1y ago
> Things like banning the sale of personal information would be a step in the right direction. it really seems like its the business model that is the real issue. especially with regards to algorithms favoring "engagement" which leads to promotion of rage-baiting and concern-trolling among many other pathological contents.
infotainment 1y ago
I suspect social media's biggest problems (engagement bait, brainrot, echo chambers, etc), would generally not be fixed even with a ban on sale of personal data.

123yawaworht456 1y ago

you're on a social medium right now.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
IAmBroom 1y ago
Madge: "You're soaking in it."

gjvnq 1y ago

A big issue here would be defining social media. Are forums social media? What about reddit? What about YouTube? I think what we really need is a ban on algorithmic recommendations that seek to encourage engagement or total time spent on the app.

infotainment 1y ago
I think this is a reasonable take; a good start would be banning all forms of algorithmic "discovery" recommendations, and things like "for you" feeds.
Spivak 1y ago
Yes, yes, and yes. You picked basically the three most obvious examples of social media. Is it a site that hosts user generated content and makes that content available to others in any 1-n fashion? Great, you have social media.
- t-writescode 1y ago
  Is a group chat? Is Discord? What if the Discord invite link is public?
terribleperson 1y ago
My take would be something like this: Any public or public-ish website, or website with more than x user which presents algorithmically sorted or curated content must make readily available the source feed for their algorithms as well as any other information they use. On any page where algorithmically sorted or curated content is presented, they must fully describe the algorithm used. Ditto anywhere you select an algorithm or navigate to an algorithmically curated or sorted page - it must be described fully in the button or selector, or adjacent to it. If that is impractical for space reasons, it should be described as best as possible with footnotes expanding on the explanation. Furthermore, the explanation, source feed, and additional information should be complete and clear such that someone could reasonably recreate a page or sorting given the algorithm, source feed, and additional info. This would be the test used in court if someone alleged infringement. My hope is that such a law would heavily bias sites towards simple, less manipulative algorithms.

Vilian 1y ago

It's based on the European one

IAmBroom 1y ago

Ironic that you're effectively dragging on a cig as you type that. Metaphorically speaking.