6 ms·

I genuinely think we will look back at the algorithmic content feed as being on par with leaded gasoline or cigarettes in terms of societal harm. Maybe worse s

I genuinely think we will look back at the algorithmic content feed as being on par with leaded gasoline or cigarettes in terms of societal harm. Maybe worse since it is engineered to be as addictive as possible down to an individual level. Then again maybe I'm being too optimistic that it will be fixed before it destroys us.

idiotsecant 8mo ago
If anything the algorithmic dopamine drip is just getting started. We haven't even entered the era of intensely personalized ai-driven individual influence campaigns. The billboard is just a billboard right now, but it won't be long before the billboard knows the most effective way to emotionally influence you and executes it perfectly. The algorithm is mostly still in your phone. That's not where it stops.
blibble 8mo ago
I think it's worse, cigarettes never threatened democracy the solution is real easy, section 230 should not apply if there's an recommendation algorithm involved treat the company as a traditional publisher because they are, they're editorialising by selecting the content vs, say, the old style facebook wall (a raw feed from user's friends), which should qualify for section 230
- nobody_r_knows 8mo ago
  [dead]
- jballanc 8mo ago
  The problem with this is that section 230 was specifically created to promote editorializing. Before section 230, online platforms were loath to engage in any moderation because they feared that a hint of moderation would jump them over into the realm of "publisher" where they could be held liable for the veracity of the content they published and, given the choice between no moderation at all or full editorial responsibility, many of the early internet platforms would have chosen no moderation (as full editorial responsibility would have been cost prohibitive). In other words, that filter that keeps Nazis, child predators, doxing, etc. off your favorite platform only exists because of section 230. Now, one could argue that the biggest platforms (Meta, Youtube, etc.) can, at this point, afford the cost of full editorial responsibility, but repealing section 230 under this logic only serves to put up a barrier to entry to any smaller competitor that might dislodge these platforms from their high, and lucrative, perch. I used to believe that the better fix would be to amend section 230 to shield filtering/removal, but not selective promotion, but TikTok has shown (rather cleverly) that selective filtering/removal can be just as effective as selective promotion of content.
  - arcticfox 8mo ago
    Even if they can't afford it... Too bad for them? I am kind of rooting for the AI slop because the status quo is horrific, maybe the AI slop cancer will put social media out of its misery.
    - horacemorace 8mo ago
      Sweet best back-and-forth All-sides on this topic. It’s very complex. On what rules ought we regulate, if any? Probably some somehow.
  - intended 8mo ago
    Platforms routinely underinvest in trust and safety. T&S is markedly more capable in the dominant languages (English is ahead by far). Platforms make absurd margins when compared to any other category of enterprise known to man. They operate at scales where a 0.001% error rate is still far beyond human capability to manually review. Customer support remains a cost center. Firms should be profitable and have a job to do. We do not owe them that job. Firms are vehicles to find the best strategies and tactics given societal resources and goals. If rules to address harms result in current business models becoming unviable, then this is not a defense of the current business model. Currently we are socializing costs and privatizing profit. Having more customer support, more transparency, and more moderation will be a cost of doing business. Our societies have more historical experience thinking about government capture than flooding the zone style private capture of speech. America developed the FDA and every country has rules on how hygiene should be maintained in food. People still can start small, and then create medium or large businesses. Regulation is framed for the size of the org. Many firms fail - but failure and recreation are natural parts of the business cycle.
  - bjt 8mo ago
    Moderation and recommendation are not the same thing.
    - AnthonyMouse 8mo ago
      When you have a feed with a million posts in it, they are. There is no practical difference between removing something and putting it on page 5000 where no one will ever see it, or from the other side, moderating away everything you wouldn't recommend. Likewise, if you have a feed at all, it has to be in some order. Should it show everyone's posts or only people you follow? Should it show posts by popularity or something else? Is "popularity" global, regional, only among people you follow, or using some statistics based on things you yourself have previously liked? There is no intrinsic default. Everything is a choice.
- jcgrillo 8mo ago
  > As interpreted by some courts, this language preserves immunity for some editorial changes to third-party content but does not allow a service provider to "materially contribute" to the unlawful information underlying a legal claim. Under the material contribution test, a provider loses immunity if it is responsible for what makes the displayed content illegal.[1] I'm not a lawyer, but idk that seems pretty clear cut. If you, the provider, run some program which does illegal shit then 230 don't cover your ass. [1] https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF12584 https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF12584
- BoingBoomTschak 8mo ago
  If your tree is so weak that a single breeze can knock it off, why blame the wind? Disclaimer: I hate social media of all kinds, it's just that you're missing the forest.
  - mort96 8mo ago
    The force of social media these past 20 years has been massive. We're talking radical change to the structure of information flow in society. That's not just a small breeze.
  - blharr 8mo ago
    The breeze is more like a 2 ton harvester expertly engineered to knock your tree down.
- mort96 8mo ago
  Why change section 230? You can just make personalized algorithmic feeds optimized for engagement illegal instead, couldn't you? What advantage does it have to mess with 230, wouldn't the result be the same in practice?
  - danielheath 8mo ago
    230 is an obvious place to say “if you decide something is relevant to the user (based on criteria they have not explicitly expressed to you), then you are a publisher of that material and are therefore not a protected carriage service.
  - carefulfungi 8mo ago
    The solution must be a social one: we must culturally shun algorithmic social media, scold its proponents, and help the addicted. We aren't going to be able to turn off the AI content spigot or write laws that control media format and content and withstand (in the US) 1st amendment review. But we can change the cultural perception.
    - mort96 8mo ago
      We aren't going to stop algorithmic social media through sheer force of public will without government involvement. Social communities aren't nimble. There a ton of inertia in a social media platform. People have their whole network, all their friends, on the platform; and all friends have their friends on the platform; etc. So in order to switch from one platform to another, you need everyone to switch at the same time, which is extremely hard. Facebook started out pretty nice. You saw what your friends posted and what pages you follow posted, in chronological order. It had privacy issues, but it worked more or less how we'd want to, with no algorithmic timeline. But they moved towards being more and more algorithmic over time. Luckily, Facebook was bad enough that it has gotten way less popular, but that has taken a long time. Twitter is the same. It started out being the social media platform we want: you saw what your followers posted or boosted, chronologically. No algorithmic feed. But look where it is now. Thankfully, Musk's involvement has made plenty of people leave, but there were a lot of years where everyone, regardless of political leaning, were on Twitter with an algorithmic timeline. Even though a lot of people complained about the algorithmic timeline when it was introduced, they stayed on Twitter because that's where everyone they knew were. YouTube too. For a long time, the only thing you saw on YouTube was what people you've subscribed to posted. It built up a huge community and became the de facto video sharing platform as a nice non-algorithmic site, and then they turned the key and went all in on replacing the subscription feed with the algorithmic feed. Now they've even adopted short-form video where you aren't even supposed to pick which video you wanna watch, you're just supposed to scroll. And replacing YouTube is hard due to its momentum. So even if everyone agrees that algorithmic feeds are terrible and move to a non-algorithmic platform over the next few decades, what do you propose we do when that new platform inevitably shifts towards being an algorithmic platform? Do we start a new multi-decade long transition to yet another platform?
- carefulfungi 8mo ago
  > cigarettes never threatened democracy Off topic, but I bet a book on tobacco cultivation/history would be fascinating. Tobacco cultivation relied on the slave labor of millions and the global tobacco market influenced Jefferson and other American revolutionaries (who were seeing their wealth threatened). I've also read that Spain treated sharing seeds as punishable by death? The rare contrast that makes Monsanto look enlightened!
  - roryirvine 8mo ago
    Mm, definitely. I think it's probably the cash crop that has historically been the most intertwined with politics, even more so than sugar. Central America, the Balkans, the Levant. The Iroquois and Algonquians. Cuba. The Medicis and the Stuarts. And, as you say, revolutionary Virginia and Maryland. Lots of potential there for a grand narrative covering 600 years or more! (And, to gp: yes, it absolutely did threaten governments, empires, and entire political systems!)
    - throwaway27448 8mo ago
      Distinguishing between the economic and politics seems impossible—hence the term "political economy". Splitting the two was a bad decision.
      - roryirvine 8mo ago
        Yeah, isn't it only a relatively recent split - mid 20th century, I think? Before that, the term "economy" was only used as a synonym for thrift or a system of management or control (and "economist" tended to mean someone who wanted to reduce spending or increase restrictions on something).
        cess11 8mo ago
        Arguably Marx is the most important historical scientist when it comes to political economy. The methodology pioneered by him has been extremely influential. Reactionary liberalism, e.g. neoliberalism, Austrian school, that kind of thing, discards the 'mess' of interdisciplinary approaches and seek a return of a protestant worldview, riffing off of their use of the New Testament verses about "render unto Caesar". This puts them in harsh ideological conflict with the political economists and elevates their 'theology' above the work of previous scientists. Historically some trace political economy to ibn Khaldun, but in the Occident it's Ricardo, Mill, Marx and so on that create a (to us) recognisable science out of it.
- hiddencost 8mo ago
  They fought a civil war over the labor required to produce tobacco.
  - dudeinjapan 8mo ago
    > cigarettes never threatened democracy "Democracy" itself was not at stake in the American Civil War because both sides practiced it. The Confederacy was/would have been a democracy analogous to ancient Athens--one where slaves (and women) were excluded from political participation. The vast majority of Confederate politicians, including Jefferson Davis, came from the "Democratic Party"--which, true to its name, championed enfranchisement for the "common (white) man" as opposed to control by elites. Perhaps a better example is the "Tobacco War" of 1780 in the American Revolution, where Cornwallis and Benedict Arnold destroyed massive quantities of cured tobacco to try to cripple the war financing of the colonies. Control of tobacco in Latin/South America since the 1700s (Spain's second-largest source of imperial revenue after precious metals) also had a directly stifling effect on democratic self-governance.
    - NeutralCrane 7mo ago
      I think the point is a significant number of human beings were not participating in democracy at the time because their forced labor was critical to propping up the tobacco (and other) industries. It’s hard to claim it’s actually democracy when it only exists after stripping the rights from a large section of people who would disagree with you, if they had the power to do so.
- quotemstr 8mo ago
  Social media cannot "threaten democracy". Democracy means that we transfer power to those who get the most votes. There's nothing more anti-democratic than deciding that some votes don't count because the people casting them heard words you didn't like. The kind of person to whom the concept of feed ranking threatening democracy is even a logical thought believes the role of the public is to rubber stamp policies a small group decides are best. If the public hears unapproved words, it might have unapproved thoughts, vote for unapproved parties, and set unapproved policy. Can't have that.
  - xorcist 8mo ago
    That trivial definition sees limited use in the real world. Few countries that are popularly considered democratic have direct democracy. Most weigh votes geographically or use some sort of representative model. Most established definitions of democracy goes something like, heavily simplified: 1. Free media 2. Independent judicial system 3. Peaceful system for the transfer of power The most popular model for implementing (3) is free and open elections, which has yielded pretty good results in the past century where it has been practiced. Considering social media pretty much is media for most, it is a heavily concentrated power, and if there can any suspicions of being in cahoots with established political power and thus non-free, surely that is a threat to democracy almost by definition. Let's be real here: It has been conclusively shown again and again that social media does influence elections. That much should be obvious without too much in the way of academic rigor.
    - quotemstr 8mo ago
      Of course social media influences elections. Direct or indirect, the principle of democracy is the same: the electorate hears a diversity of perspectives and votes according to the ones found most convincing. How can you say you believe in democracy when you want to control what people hear so they don't vote the wrong way? In a democracy there is no such thing as voting the wrong way. Who are you to decide which perspectives get heard? You can object to algorithmic feed ranking only because it might make people vote wrong --- but as we established, the concept of "voting wrong" in a legitimate democracy doesn't even type check. In a legitimate democracy, it's the voting that decides what's right and wrong!
- cruffle_duffle 8mo ago
  > never threatened democracy The beautiful part is how non-partisan this is. It cooks all minds regardless of tribe.
- ZeroGravitas 7mo ago
  You can draw a fairly clear line from the corporate response to cigarettes being regulated through to the strategy for climate change and social media/crypto etc. The Republicans are basically a coalition of corporate interests that want to get you addicted to stuff that will make you poor and unhealthy, and underling any collective attempt to help. The previous vice-president claimed cigarettes don't give you cancer and the current president thinks wind turbine and the health problems caused by asbestos are both hoaxes. This is not a coincidence. The two big times the Supreme Court flexed their powers were to shut down cigarette regulation by the FDA and Obama's Clean Power plan. Again, not a coincidence.
  - alsetmusic 7mo ago
    That's because we / our (USA) country is owned. As Carlin said, "It's a big club. And you ain't in it."[0] But what isn't properly addressed when people link to this is that the real issue he's discussing is our failing educational system. It's not a coincidence that the Right attacks public schools and the orange man appointed a wrestling lady to dismantle the dept of education.[1] 0. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNXHSMmaq_s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNXHSMmaq_s 1. The Trump Administration Plot to Destroy Public Education - https://prospect.org/2026/01/13/trump-mcmahon-department-education-dismantle-disabilities-act/ https://prospect.org/2026/01/13/trump-mcmahon-department-edu... Aside: I was in the audience for this show (his last TV special). Didn't know it'd be shot for TV. Kind of sucked, actually, cause they had lights on the audience for the cameras and one was right in my eyes. Anyway, a toast to George Carlin who was ahead of his time and would hate how right he's been.
- toss1 7mo ago
  THIS, EXACTLY! If there is an algorithm, the social media platform is exactly as responsible for the content as any publisher If it is only a straight chronological feed of posts by actually followed accts, the social media platform gets Section 230 protections. The social media platforms have gamed the law, gotten legitimate protections for/from what their users post, but then they manipulate it to their advantage more than any publisher. >>the solution is real easy, section 230 should not apply if there's an recommendation algorithm involved >>treat the company as a traditional publisher >>because they are, they're editorialising by selecting the content >>vs, say, the old style facebook wall (a raw feed from user's friends), which should qualify for section 230
timacles 8mo ago
Yeah might not ever get fixed. It is the perfect tool for mass influence and surveillance of the people. The powers that he would never let it go
- PantaloonFlames 8mo ago
  It's literally why Leon bought Twitter. A Mass influence vehicle.
aix1 8mo ago
> we will look back at the algorithmic content feed as being on par with leaded gasoline or cigarettes in terms of societal harm I agree 100%. However, I think the core issue is not the use of an algorithm to recommend or even to show stuff. I think the issue is that the algorithm is optimized for the interests of a platform (max engagement => max ad revenue) and not for the interests of a user (happiness, delight, however you want to frame it). And there's way too much of this, everywhere.
- randomNumber7 8mo ago
  We live in a society that only values money so why should anyone optimise for s.th. else?
  - aix1 7mo ago
    This frames society as some exogenous entity that we have no influence over. It also assumes that the society is homogenous, in the sense that everyone cares about the same thing. I don't think that's true at all.
    - bigfudge 7mo ago
      But the people with control of mechanisms of power like social influence do only care about money, so the voices of people who have other values become irrelevant.
alfiedotwtf 8mo ago
It’s crazy (but true) to think that by slowly manipulating someone’s feed, Zuck and Musk could convert people’s religions, political leanings, personal values, etc with little work. In fact, I would be surprised if there was NOT some part of Facebook and Twitter’s admin or support page where a user’s “preferences” could be modified i.e “over the next 8 months, convert the user to a staunch evangelical Christian” etc
- cluckindan 8mo ago
  FB was always conversion as a service

idiotsecant 8mo ago

If anything the algorithmic dopamine drip is just getting started. We haven't even entered the era of intensely personalized ai-driven individual influence campaigns. The billboard is just a billboard right now, but it won't be long before the billboard knows the most effective way to emotionally influence you and executes it perfectly. The algorithm is mostly still in your phone. That's not where it stops.

blibble 8mo ago

I think it's worse, cigarettes never threatened democracy the solution is real easy, section 230 should not apply if there's an recommendation algorithm involved treat the company as a traditional publisher because they are, they're editorialising by selecting the content vs, say, the old style facebook wall (a raw feed from user's friends), which should qualify for section 230

nobody_r_knows 8mo ago
[dead]
jballanc 8mo ago
The problem with this is that section 230 was specifically created to promote editorializing. Before section 230, online platforms were loath to engage in any moderation because they feared that a hint of moderation would jump them over into the realm of "publisher" where they could be held liable for the veracity of the content they published and, given the choice between no moderation at all or full editorial responsibility, many of the early internet platforms would have chosen no moderation (as full editorial responsibility would have been cost prohibitive). In other words, that filter that keeps Nazis, child predators, doxing, etc. off your favorite platform only exists because of section 230. Now, one could argue that the biggest platforms (Meta, Youtube, etc.) can, at this point, afford the cost of full editorial responsibility, but repealing section 230 under this logic only serves to put up a barrier to entry to any smaller competitor that might dislodge these platforms from their high, and lucrative, perch. I used to believe that the better fix would be to amend section 230 to shield filtering/removal, but not selective promotion, but TikTok has shown (rather cleverly) that selective filtering/removal can be just as effective as selective promotion of content.
- arcticfox 8mo ago
  Even if they can't afford it... Too bad for them? I am kind of rooting for the AI slop because the status quo is horrific, maybe the AI slop cancer will put social media out of its misery.
  - horacemorace 8mo ago
    Sweet best back-and-forth All-sides on this topic. It’s very complex. On what rules ought we regulate, if any? Probably some somehow.
- intended 8mo ago
  Platforms routinely underinvest in trust and safety. T&S is markedly more capable in the dominant languages (English is ahead by far). Platforms make absurd margins when compared to any other category of enterprise known to man. They operate at scales where a 0.001% error rate is still far beyond human capability to manually review. Customer support remains a cost center. Firms should be profitable and have a job to do. We do not owe them that job. Firms are vehicles to find the best strategies and tactics given societal resources and goals. If rules to address harms result in current business models becoming unviable, then this is not a defense of the current business model. Currently we are socializing costs and privatizing profit. Having more customer support, more transparency, and more moderation will be a cost of doing business. Our societies have more historical experience thinking about government capture than flooding the zone style private capture of speech. America developed the FDA and every country has rules on how hygiene should be maintained in food. People still can start small, and then create medium or large businesses. Regulation is framed for the size of the org. Many firms fail - but failure and recreation are natural parts of the business cycle.
- bjt 8mo ago
  Moderation and recommendation are not the same thing.
  - AnthonyMouse 8mo ago
    When you have a feed with a million posts in it, they are. There is no practical difference between removing something and putting it on page 5000 where no one will ever see it, or from the other side, moderating away everything you wouldn't recommend. Likewise, if you have a feed at all, it has to be in some order. Should it show everyone's posts or only people you follow? Should it show posts by popularity or something else? Is "popularity" global, regional, only among people you follow, or using some statistics based on things you yourself have previously liked? There is no intrinsic default. Everything is a choice.
jcgrillo 8mo ago
> As interpreted by some courts, this language preserves immunity for some editorial changes to third-party content but does not allow a service provider to "materially contribute" to the unlawful information underlying a legal claim. Under the material contribution test, a provider loses immunity if it is responsible for what makes the displayed content illegal.[1] I'm not a lawyer, but idk that seems pretty clear cut. If you, the provider, run some program which does illegal shit then 230 don't cover your ass. [1] https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF12584 https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF12584
BoingBoomTschak 8mo ago
If your tree is so weak that a single breeze can knock it off, why blame the wind? Disclaimer: I hate social media of all kinds, it's just that you're missing the forest.
- mort96 8mo ago
  The force of social media these past 20 years has been massive. We're talking radical change to the structure of information flow in society. That's not just a small breeze.
- blharr 8mo ago
  The breeze is more like a 2 ton harvester expertly engineered to knock your tree down.
mort96 8mo ago
Why change section 230? You can just make personalized algorithmic feeds optimized for engagement illegal instead, couldn't you? What advantage does it have to mess with 230, wouldn't the result be the same in practice?
- danielheath 8mo ago
  230 is an obvious place to say “if you decide something is relevant to the user (based on criteria they have not explicitly expressed to you), then you are a publisher of that material and are therefore not a protected carriage service.
- carefulfungi 8mo ago
  The solution must be a social one: we must culturally shun algorithmic social media, scold its proponents, and help the addicted. We aren't going to be able to turn off the AI content spigot or write laws that control media format and content and withstand (in the US) 1st amendment review. But we can change the cultural perception.
  - mort96 8mo ago
    We aren't going to stop algorithmic social media through sheer force of public will without government involvement. Social communities aren't nimble. There a ton of inertia in a social media platform. People have their whole network, all their friends, on the platform; and all friends have their friends on the platform; etc. So in order to switch from one platform to another, you need everyone to switch at the same time, which is extremely hard. Facebook started out pretty nice. You saw what your friends posted and what pages you follow posted, in chronological order. It had privacy issues, but it worked more or less how we'd want to, with no algorithmic timeline. But they moved towards being more and more algorithmic over time. Luckily, Facebook was bad enough that it has gotten way less popular, but that has taken a long time. Twitter is the same. It started out being the social media platform we want: you saw what your followers posted or boosted, chronologically. No algorithmic feed. But look where it is now. Thankfully, Musk's involvement has made plenty of people leave, but there were a lot of years where everyone, regardless of political leaning, were on Twitter with an algorithmic timeline. Even though a lot of people complained about the algorithmic timeline when it was introduced, they stayed on Twitter because that's where everyone they knew were. YouTube too. For a long time, the only thing you saw on YouTube was what people you've subscribed to posted. It built up a huge community and became the de facto video sharing platform as a nice non-algorithmic site, and then they turned the key and went all in on replacing the subscription feed with the algorithmic feed. Now they've even adopted short-form video where you aren't even supposed to pick which video you wanna watch, you're just supposed to scroll. And replacing YouTube is hard due to its momentum. So even if everyone agrees that algorithmic feeds are terrible and move to a non-algorithmic platform over the next few decades, what do you propose we do when that new platform inevitably shifts towards being an algorithmic platform? Do we start a new multi-decade long transition to yet another platform?
carefulfungi 8mo ago
> cigarettes never threatened democracy Off topic, but I bet a book on tobacco cultivation/history would be fascinating. Tobacco cultivation relied on the slave labor of millions and the global tobacco market influenced Jefferson and other American revolutionaries (who were seeing their wealth threatened). I've also read that Spain treated sharing seeds as punishable by death? The rare contrast that makes Monsanto look enlightened!
- roryirvine 8mo ago
  Mm, definitely. I think it's probably the cash crop that has historically been the most intertwined with politics, even more so than sugar. Central America, the Balkans, the Levant. The Iroquois and Algonquians. Cuba. The Medicis and the Stuarts. And, as you say, revolutionary Virginia and Maryland. Lots of potential there for a grand narrative covering 600 years or more! (And, to gp: yes, it absolutely did threaten governments, empires, and entire political systems!)
  - throwaway27448 8mo ago
    Distinguishing between the economic and politics seems impossible—hence the term "political economy". Splitting the two was a bad decision.
    - roryirvine 8mo ago
      Yeah, isn't it only a relatively recent split - mid 20th century, I think? Before that, the term "economy" was only used as a synonym for thrift or a system of management or control (and "economist" tended to mean someone who wanted to reduce spending or increase restrictions on something).
      - cess11 8mo ago
        Arguably Marx is the most important historical scientist when it comes to political economy. The methodology pioneered by him has been extremely influential. Reactionary liberalism, e.g. neoliberalism, Austrian school, that kind of thing, discards the 'mess' of interdisciplinary approaches and seek a return of a protestant worldview, riffing off of their use of the New Testament verses about "render unto Caesar". This puts them in harsh ideological conflict with the political economists and elevates their 'theology' above the work of previous scientists. Historically some trace political economy to ibn Khaldun, but in the Occident it's Ricardo, Mill, Marx and so on that create a (to us) recognisable science out of it.
hiddencost 8mo ago
They fought a civil war over the labor required to produce tobacco.
- dudeinjapan 8mo ago
  > cigarettes never threatened democracy "Democracy" itself was not at stake in the American Civil War because both sides practiced it. The Confederacy was/would have been a democracy analogous to ancient Athens--one where slaves (and women) were excluded from political participation. The vast majority of Confederate politicians, including Jefferson Davis, came from the "Democratic Party"--which, true to its name, championed enfranchisement for the "common (white) man" as opposed to control by elites. Perhaps a better example is the "Tobacco War" of 1780 in the American Revolution, where Cornwallis and Benedict Arnold destroyed massive quantities of cured tobacco to try to cripple the war financing of the colonies. Control of tobacco in Latin/South America since the 1700s (Spain's second-largest source of imperial revenue after precious metals) also had a directly stifling effect on democratic self-governance.
  - NeutralCrane 7mo ago
    I think the point is a significant number of human beings were not participating in democracy at the time because their forced labor was critical to propping up the tobacco (and other) industries. It’s hard to claim it’s actually democracy when it only exists after stripping the rights from a large section of people who would disagree with you, if they had the power to do so.
quotemstr 8mo ago
Social media cannot "threaten democracy". Democracy means that we transfer power to those who get the most votes. There's nothing more anti-democratic than deciding that some votes don't count because the people casting them heard words you didn't like. The kind of person to whom the concept of feed ranking threatening democracy is even a logical thought believes the role of the public is to rubber stamp policies a small group decides are best. If the public hears unapproved words, it might have unapproved thoughts, vote for unapproved parties, and set unapproved policy. Can't have that.
- xorcist 8mo ago
  That trivial definition sees limited use in the real world. Few countries that are popularly considered democratic have direct democracy. Most weigh votes geographically or use some sort of representative model. Most established definitions of democracy goes something like, heavily simplified: 1. Free media 2. Independent judicial system 3. Peaceful system for the transfer of power The most popular model for implementing (3) is free and open elections, which has yielded pretty good results in the past century where it has been practiced. Considering social media pretty much is media for most, it is a heavily concentrated power, and if there can any suspicions of being in cahoots with established political power and thus non-free, surely that is a threat to democracy almost by definition. Let's be real here: It has been conclusively shown again and again that social media does influence elections. That much should be obvious without too much in the way of academic rigor.
  - quotemstr 8mo ago
    Of course social media influences elections. Direct or indirect, the principle of democracy is the same: the electorate hears a diversity of perspectives and votes according to the ones found most convincing. How can you say you believe in democracy when you want to control what people hear so they don't vote the wrong way? In a democracy there is no such thing as voting the wrong way. Who are you to decide which perspectives get heard? You can object to algorithmic feed ranking only because it might make people vote wrong --- but as we established, the concept of "voting wrong" in a legitimate democracy doesn't even type check. In a legitimate democracy, it's the voting that decides what's right and wrong!
cruffle_duffle 8mo ago
> never threatened democracy The beautiful part is how non-partisan this is. It cooks all minds regardless of tribe.
ZeroGravitas 7mo ago
You can draw a fairly clear line from the corporate response to cigarettes being regulated through to the strategy for climate change and social media/crypto etc. The Republicans are basically a coalition of corporate interests that want to get you addicted to stuff that will make you poor and unhealthy, and underling any collective attempt to help. The previous vice-president claimed cigarettes don't give you cancer and the current president thinks wind turbine and the health problems caused by asbestos are both hoaxes. This is not a coincidence. The two big times the Supreme Court flexed their powers were to shut down cigarette regulation by the FDA and Obama's Clean Power plan. Again, not a coincidence.
- alsetmusic 7mo ago
  That's because we / our (USA) country is owned. As Carlin said, "It's a big club. And you ain't in it."[0] But what isn't properly addressed when people link to this is that the real issue he's discussing is our failing educational system. It's not a coincidence that the Right attacks public schools and the orange man appointed a wrestling lady to dismantle the dept of education.[1] 0. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNXHSMmaq_s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNXHSMmaq_s 1. The Trump Administration Plot to Destroy Public Education - https://prospect.org/2026/01/13/trump-mcmahon-department-education-dismantle-disabilities-act/ https://prospect.org/2026/01/13/trump-mcmahon-department-edu... Aside: I was in the audience for this show (his last TV special). Didn't know it'd be shot for TV. Kind of sucked, actually, cause they had lights on the audience for the cameras and one was right in my eyes. Anyway, a toast to George Carlin who was ahead of his time and would hate how right he's been.
toss1 7mo ago
THIS, EXACTLY! If there is an algorithm, the social media platform is exactly as responsible for the content as any publisher If it is only a straight chronological feed of posts by actually followed accts, the social media platform gets Section 230 protections. The social media platforms have gamed the law, gotten legitimate protections for/from what their users post, but then they manipulate it to their advantage more than any publisher. >>the solution is real easy, section 230 should not apply if there's an recommendation algorithm involved >>treat the company as a traditional publisher >>because they are, they're editorialising by selecting the content >>vs, say, the old style facebook wall (a raw feed from user's friends), which should qualify for section 230

timacles 8mo ago

Yeah might not ever get fixed. It is the perfect tool for mass influence and surveillance of the people. The powers that he would never let it go

PantaloonFlames 8mo ago
It's literally why Leon bought Twitter. A Mass influence vehicle.

aix1 8mo ago

> we will look back at the algorithmic content feed as being on par with leaded gasoline or cigarettes in terms of societal harm I agree 100%. However, I think the core issue is not the use of an algorithm to recommend or even to show stuff. I think the issue is that the algorithm is optimized for the interests of a platform (max engagement => max ad revenue) and not for the interests of a user (happiness, delight, however you want to frame it). And there's way too much of this, everywhere.

randomNumber7 8mo ago
We live in a society that only values money so why should anyone optimise for s.th. else?
- aix1 7mo ago
  This frames society as some exogenous entity that we have no influence over. It also assumes that the society is homogenous, in the sense that everyone cares about the same thing. I don't think that's true at all.
  - bigfudge 7mo ago
    But the people with control of mechanisms of power like social influence do only care about money, so the voices of people who have other values become irrelevant.

alfiedotwtf 8mo ago

It’s crazy (but true) to think that by slowly manipulating someone’s feed, Zuck and Musk could convert people’s religions, political leanings, personal values, etc with little work. In fact, I would be surprised if there was NOT some part of Facebook and Twitter’s admin or support page where a user’s “preferences” could be modified i.e “over the next 8 months, convert the user to a staunch evangelical Christian” etc

cluckindan 8mo ago
FB was always conversion as a service