4 ms·

I know exactly what you’re talking about and it has been driving me nuts for years. They constantly go up there and say “it’s cool we totally have these amazing

I know exactly what you’re talking about and it has been driving me nuts for years. They constantly go up there and say “it’s cool we totally have these amazing algorithms that solve the problem,” then when they don’t solve the problem they just shrug and go “well we’re just so big you can’t actually expect us to do what we said we would. We’re doing decent enough!” YouTube is another great example of this. Fine, be smaller. If I own 10,000 apartment buildings and one of them collapses killing dozens and injuring more, I don’t just get to shrug and go “sorry folks, it’s not reasonable for you to expect me to follow all the rules on all my properties. I’m too big.”

tantalor 9mo ago
Too big to succeed.
morissette 9mo ago
[flagged]
- jobs_throwaway 9mo ago
  It's not a stretch to see a direct connection to mental health issues and suicide
  - ToValueFunfetti 9mo ago
    It's certainly a stretch to describe that as killing people. You can argue it's a an acceptable stretch, or that it's still very bad even if described more accurately, but it is plainly not what 'killing people' traditionally means
    - deleted 9mo ago
      [deleted]
    - jobs_throwaway 9mo ago
      "this product leads to elevated suicide rates among users" being equated to "this is killing people" is not a stretch
      - ToValueFunfetti 9mo ago
        Yes, it is. Anything with a wide userbase that worsens or even just intensifies mood will lead to elevated suicide rates. If your boss picks someone else for the promotion and you kill yourself over it, your boss didn't kill you. If you're attracted to someone and they marry someone else and you respond similarly, same answer. If your instagram friends post pictures of their happy lives and it makes you feel bad, etc. You can broaden the definition of 'killing people' to include 'elevating their risk of killing themselves', but then you have to shed the intuitions that are the sole purpose of using that kind of language in the first place. It's a rhetorical sleight of hand.
        Forgeties79 9mo ago
        We have decades of research now showing concretely the harmful effects of social media, especially for people under 18. It is not debatable. It directly harms broader society and individuals yet we continue to have incredibly thin regulations that are barely enforced.
        morissette 9mo ago
        And here I thought the internet was about the free exchange of ideas and knowledge. And free will was the ability to choose to use social media or not.
        Forgeties79 9mo ago
        I don’t know why you’re getting sarcastic with me. I also imagine you’re aware of the addiction element but if not I can send some studies/research along. Social media companies have decades of work and billions of dollars of research to pull from. They use every single trick and tool they can to make it an addiction. The dialogue and shared strategies between them and the gambling industry is enough of a red flag on its own IMO. It’s not a fair fight. Asking someone to just stop using social media can be like telling a gambling addict to just stop gambling. You’re also expecting teenagers to exhibit that self control. And I’m not even getting into how critical it is to use social media if you run a business. Hell at some companies you’re required to participate in their social media presence. You can’t simply make it go away. You may as well tell people to just stop buying a phone or a computer.
  - ceejayoz 9mo ago
    Even less stretching: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rohingya_genocide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rohingya_genocide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook_content_management_controversies#Incitement_of_human_rights_abuses_in_Myanmar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook_content_management_co...
zanellato19 9mo ago
Yeah, this is bizarre that we just accepted. "oh, we get so much content that we can't possibly review it all" then don't accept anymore content from anyone? Honestly, the fact that these companies are too big is a big big concern. We should have limited their size long ago and never accepted that bullshit excuse.
- Forgeties79 9mo ago
  Exactly. If you can’t handle your volume that’s your problem
zo1 9mo ago
The additional problem to this is that they guided the industry and their own platforms to actively generate that much content. No effort was made to naturally or organically slow the creation or even perform any sort of de-duplication. So whatever argument they use for "we're too big, their is just too much content" is directly on them. Social media is a slot-machine essentially, and in order to do that they had to mobilize and incentivize entire industries to revolve around generating millenias-worth of content.
hsuduebc2 9mo ago
I would say they have these algorithms. They just know they can do it because literally nobody is forcing them not to. They buy politicians in US and it seems like EU fines are too small for them and even sparks and outrage of US policitcans when applied. I surely hope so they end up like Standart oil. Broken down into small companies, because this monopol is absolutely net negative value for society.
turtlesdown11 9mo ago
its the silicon valley way, just break the law if it might affect your business

tantalor 9mo ago

Too big to succeed.

morissette 9mo ago

[flagged]

jobs_throwaway 9mo ago
It's not a stretch to see a direct connection to mental health issues and suicide
- ToValueFunfetti 9mo ago
  It's certainly a stretch to describe that as killing people. You can argue it's a an acceptable stretch, or that it's still very bad even if described more accurately, but it is plainly not what 'killing people' traditionally means
  - deleted 9mo ago
    [deleted]
  - jobs_throwaway 9mo ago
    "this product leads to elevated suicide rates among users" being equated to "this is killing people" is not a stretch
    - ToValueFunfetti 9mo ago
      Yes, it is. Anything with a wide userbase that worsens or even just intensifies mood will lead to elevated suicide rates. If your boss picks someone else for the promotion and you kill yourself over it, your boss didn't kill you. If you're attracted to someone and they marry someone else and you respond similarly, same answer. If your instagram friends post pictures of their happy lives and it makes you feel bad, etc. You can broaden the definition of 'killing people' to include 'elevating their risk of killing themselves', but then you have to shed the intuitions that are the sole purpose of using that kind of language in the first place. It's a rhetorical sleight of hand.
      - Forgeties79 9mo ago
        We have decades of research now showing concretely the harmful effects of social media, especially for people under 18. It is not debatable. It directly harms broader society and individuals yet we continue to have incredibly thin regulations that are barely enforced.
        morissette 9mo ago
        And here I thought the internet was about the free exchange of ideas and knowledge. And free will was the ability to choose to use social media or not.
        Forgeties79 9mo ago
        I don’t know why you’re getting sarcastic with me. I also imagine you’re aware of the addiction element but if not I can send some studies/research along. Social media companies have decades of work and billions of dollars of research to pull from. They use every single trick and tool they can to make it an addiction. The dialogue and shared strategies between them and the gambling industry is enough of a red flag on its own IMO. It’s not a fair fight. Asking someone to just stop using social media can be like telling a gambling addict to just stop gambling. You’re also expecting teenagers to exhibit that self control. And I’m not even getting into how critical it is to use social media if you run a business. Hell at some companies you’re required to participate in their social media presence. You can’t simply make it go away. You may as well tell people to just stop buying a phone or a computer.
- ceejayoz 9mo ago
  Even less stretching: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rohingya_genocide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rohingya_genocide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook_content_management_controversies#Incitement_of_human_rights_abuses_in_Myanmar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook_content_management_co...

zanellato19 9mo ago

Yeah, this is bizarre that we just accepted. "oh, we get so much content that we can't possibly review it all" then don't accept anymore content from anyone? Honestly, the fact that these companies are too big is a big big concern. We should have limited their size long ago and never accepted that bullshit excuse.

Forgeties79 9mo ago
Exactly. If you can’t handle your volume that’s your problem

zo1 9mo ago

The additional problem to this is that they guided the industry and their own platforms to actively generate that much content. No effort was made to naturally or organically slow the creation or even perform any sort of de-duplication. So whatever argument they use for "we're too big, their is just too much content" is directly on them. Social media is a slot-machine essentially, and in order to do that they had to mobilize and incentivize entire industries to revolve around generating millenias-worth of content.

hsuduebc2 9mo ago

I would say they have these algorithms. They just know they can do it because literally nobody is forcing them not to. They buy politicians in US and it seems like EU fines are too small for them and even sparks and outrage of US policitcans when applied. I surely hope so they end up like Standart oil. Broken down into small companies, because this monopol is absolutely net negative value for society.

turtlesdown11 9mo ago

its the silicon valley way, just break the law if it might affect your business