11–20 of 89 posts
I call this anecdotal growth mutation. You see something, you share it, a lot of other people share it. Suddenly the anecdote becomes statistically significant in the heads of everyone.
I view this as the primary reason that protests and rioting have been significantly more widespread recently. In order for someone to feel good about protesting and rioting, it helps if people around them are doing it, so that it seems socially acceptable, and so that negative consequences are less likely to occur. Normally you would need to see this physically near you, but now with viral algorithms, all it takes is…
If people don't have half a second of patience, how much does it take to motivate them to go to a protest, shout, march, and sometimes even risk their lives? Sure, if we're not careful, if we don't implement the right controls, social media can be used for ill. However, I'd be very careful not to generalize from results like in the OP.
There are groups of people that you wouldn't even pay attention to if it weren't for social media. There is suffering that would be invisible to the world if it weren't for social media. It is our duty to expend the small amount of energy required before assuming the worst about a freedom struggle, because sometimes solidarity is the only thing that powerless people can have.
Sounds like a great explanation for the spread of very polarized political opinions in social media. Everyone thinks their niche opinion has obtained majority support.
Do you think this is the first time in history that there are very polarized political opinions? How do you explain it in the past? Maybe polarization comes from... polarizing circumstances?
This is a timely article. If I only viewed the world through my Facebook feed right now, I'd believe that everyone in the US wants to defund every police department. In reality it's an incredibly unpopular view among everyone, left, right, and center. https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/20... I think making this worse is that even a mild concern about this policy would be received very poorly on…
Also an end on the war on drugs would be a good step too; cost saving plus decreasing the need for police.
I view this as the primary reason that protests and rioting have been significantly more widespread recently. In order for someone to feel good about protesting and rioting, it helps if people around them are doing it, so that it seems socially acceptable, and so that negative consequences are less likely to occur. Normally you would need to see this physically near you, but now with viral algorithms, all it takes is…
People don't usually protest in person unless they really believe in the underlying cause. There are developers on HN who worry about a 500 millisecond delay in their app because users are so fickle that half a second puts them off. If people don't have half a second of patience, how much does it take to motivate them to go to a protest, shout, march, and sometimes even risk their lives? Sure, if we're not careful, i…
Definitely, but the algorithms for social media do not help the worst cases of the most suffering become more viral than more infrequent cases of lesser suffering.
The issue is that all that matters is virality. Sometimes suffering is viral when it should be, but other times it is not, and when it is not, no one will care, because the algorithms of virality control what everyone will see and care about.
We're seeing this right now with covid as it becomes less viral and fashionable to report on, and we've seen it previously with things like the mass factory farming of billions of animals, which doesn't seem to get a ton of attention nowadays, among many other terrible things, even though the magnitude of suffering involved is so great.
I view this as the primary reason that protests and rioting have been significantly more widespread recently. In order for someone to feel good about protesting and rioting, it helps if people around them are doing it, so that it seems socially acceptable, and so that negative consequences are less likely to occur. Normally you would need to see this physically near you, but now with viral algorithms, all it takes is…
What do you mean by this? Do you mean uncontrollable in the sense that we as users don't have much fine-grained control over what we're shown?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People don't usually protest in person unless they really believe in the underlying cause. There are developers on HN who worry about a 500 millisecond delay in their app because users are so fickle that half a second puts them off. If people don't have half a second of patience, how much does it take to motivate them to go to a protest, shout, march, and sometimes even risk their lives? Sure, if we're not careful, i…
>there is suffering that would be invisible to the world if it weren't for social media. Definitely, but the algorithms for social media do not help the worst cases of the most suffering become more viral than more infrequent cases of lesser suffering. The issue is that all that matters is virality. Sometimes suffering is viral when it should be, but other times it is not, and when it is not, no one will care, becaus…
Before Facebook came out, how much did news reporters, even on MSNBC, lead the conversation against systematic social and economic injustice towards African Americans? They failed miserably on that front. Now we don't have to rely on the media for that. The oppressed people themselves are leading the narrative, not because it's fashionable, but because they can't breathe.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>there is suffering that would be invisible to the world if it weren't for social media. Definitely, but the algorithms for social media do not help the worst cases of the most suffering become more viral than more infrequent cases of lesser suffering. The issue is that all that matters is virality. Sometimes suffering is viral when it should be, but other times it is not, and when it is not, no one will care, becaus…
I've read enough history to be convinced that democratic-anything is usually better. Social media is a more democratic medium than traditional media. On the whole, that will turn out for the better, especially as we learn how to control the worst aspects of social media. Before Facebook came out, how much did news reporters, even on MSNBC, lead the conversation against systematic social and economic injustice towards…
>The oppressed people themselves are leading the narrative, not because it's fashionable
I'm simply suggesting that the narrative is led by what content is viral. Depending on what people like to talk about, sometimes that might be a just cause and appear to have good effects. But, there is not at all guaranteed, and the system doesn't really care if your cause is just or not, only if it is viral and profitable to report on, which generally means enraging.
I view this as the primary reason that protests and rioting have been significantly more widespread recently. In order for someone to feel good about protesting and rioting, it helps if people around them are doing it, so that it seems socially acceptable, and so that negative consequences are less likely to occur. Normally you would need to see this physically near you, but now with viral algorithms, all it takes is…
> uncontrollable algorithms What do you mean by this? Do you mean uncontrollable in the sense that we as users don't have much fine-grained control over what we're shown?
The second is that there is a system at work here that no individual person or company is in control of. If one news agency decides to not publish content that is outrageous, they may simply just be out-competed by all the others that decide to maximize for outrage, and no improvement will occur. Similarly, it's difficult for social media companies to simply 'change' their algorithms to do good things and promote good content, for this reason and many others.
We assume certain unhelpful behaviours are the norm and perpetuate toxic defaults through the majority illusion and what amounts to impostor syndrome.