4 ms·

Nobody mentioned speech. Infinite scroll isn't speech. Engagement-maximizing algorithms that push increasingly extreme content to keep you on the app longer ain

by braiamp 2mo ago

Nobody mentioned speech. Infinite scroll isn't speech. Engagement-maximizing algorithms that push increasingly extreme content to keep you on the app longer ain't speech. The business model that makes outrage more profitable than accuracy isn't speech. You can have complete freedom of expression and still regulate that a platform isn't designed to psychologically exploit the people using it. These are not the same thing

shevy-java 2mo ago
> You can have complete freedom of expression Not if you must ID before accessing information on the world wide web.
- braiamp 2mo ago
  What are you talking about? I'm against that. I'm saying to remake Facebook so that you don't have the cesspool anymore. Did you read the post?
iamnothere 2mo ago
I’m fine with regulating some aspects of the business model, particularly targeted advertising (which should fall under interstate commerce). I’m less comfortable with the idea of legislating UX, which does seem to be an issue of speech, equivalent to legislating the layout of books. But if you destroy the engagement farming business model, none of that other stuff matters anyway.
pibaker 2mo ago
> Engagement-maximizing algorithms that push increasingly extreme content to keep you on the app longer ain't speech Who decides what makes an algorithm engagement maximizing instead of you know, user satisfaction maximizing (because satisfied users stay around for longer, right?) And who decides what is extremist and what is acceptable? Was Rush Limbaugh reading the names of patients who died of AIDS on a hundred year old media more or less extreme than someone praising mao zedong for killing all landlords on social media?
- pessimizer 2mo ago
  > Who decides what makes an algorithm engagement maximizing instead of you know, user satisfaction maximizing (because satisfied users stay around for longer, right?) Let the user decide. The evil algorithms require the "algorithms" such as "all my subscriptions, completely, in chronological order" to be removed. If "all ragebait" or "maximize profits for facebook" are just other buttons, I have no objection, but I do not think they will be popular.
  - ipaddr 2mo ago
    You do they visit or not. Should hackernews be forced to presenting their content a million ways? They present based on decisions made by the people who created the site.
  - pibaker 2mo ago
    Ok. What about a "Viewpoint Diversity" tab that lets you read the dumbest opinions from the other side of politics so that you stay in touch with what your fellow countrymen actually thinks. Not rage bait, I promise.
- lo_zamoyski 2mo ago
  > Who decide The law already concerns itself with determining intent (hence murder vs. manslaughter). I don’t see why similar criteria and methods cannot be applied here. We can assess the objectively bad psychological consequences of social media and look for evidence that establishes moral certainty about the intent. I am not impressed with manufactured skepticism.
- fsflover 2mo ago
  > Who decides what makes an algorithm engagement maximizing We can look at the intention of the developers? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24579498 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24579498
ipaddr 2mo ago
Infinite scrolling is now evil? But pagination is fine? The form you use is part of expression. Engagement maximizing is a buzzword that translates to content people are interested in viewing. Why would you want to regulate content to be uninteresting? I can't see that benefiting anyone.

by braiamp 2mo ago

shevy-java 2mo ago

> You can have complete freedom of expression Not if you must ID before accessing information on the world wide web.

braiamp 2mo ago
What are you talking about? I'm against that. I'm saying to remake Facebook so that you don't have the cesspool anymore. Did you read the post?

iamnothere 2mo ago

I’m fine with regulating some aspects of the business model, particularly targeted advertising (which should fall under interstate commerce). I’m less comfortable with the idea of legislating UX, which does seem to be an issue of speech, equivalent to legislating the layout of books. But if you destroy the engagement farming business model, none of that other stuff matters anyway.

pibaker 2mo ago

> Engagement-maximizing algorithms that push increasingly extreme content to keep you on the app longer ain't speech Who decides what makes an algorithm engagement maximizing instead of you know, user satisfaction maximizing (because satisfied users stay around for longer, right?) And who decides what is extremist and what is acceptable? Was Rush Limbaugh reading the names of patients who died of AIDS on a hundred year old media more or less extreme than someone praising mao zedong for killing all landlords on social media?

pessimizer 2mo ago
> Who decides what makes an algorithm engagement maximizing instead of you know, user satisfaction maximizing (because satisfied users stay around for longer, right?) Let the user decide. The evil algorithms require the "algorithms" such as "all my subscriptions, completely, in chronological order" to be removed. If "all ragebait" or "maximize profits for facebook" are just other buttons, I have no objection, but I do not think they will be popular.
- ipaddr 2mo ago
  You do they visit or not. Should hackernews be forced to presenting their content a million ways? They present based on decisions made by the people who created the site.
- pibaker 2mo ago
  Ok. What about a "Viewpoint Diversity" tab that lets you read the dumbest opinions from the other side of politics so that you stay in touch with what your fellow countrymen actually thinks. Not rage bait, I promise.
lo_zamoyski 2mo ago
> Who decide The law already concerns itself with determining intent (hence murder vs. manslaughter). I don’t see why similar criteria and methods cannot be applied here. We can assess the objectively bad psychological consequences of social media and look for evidence that establishes moral certainty about the intent. I am not impressed with manufactured skepticism.
fsflover 2mo ago
> Who decides what makes an algorithm engagement maximizing We can look at the intention of the developers? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24579498 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24579498

ipaddr 2mo ago

Infinite scrolling is now evil? But pagination is fine? The form you use is part of expression. Engagement maximizing is a buzzword that translates to content people are interested in viewing. Why would you want to regulate content to be uninteresting? I can't see that benefiting anyone.