181–190 of 211 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd like to see you stare that Billion Dollars in the eye and say 'no thank you, these are my principles'. Bonus points if you can do it with your spouse and children by your side.
Instagram did that. However for social networks you make money from ads, so they’re rotten in a different way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We are, but the blame has to be shared, too. In many cases the algorithm is being reinforced by your and everyone's actions. It may not even necessarily be specifically trying to prioritize polarizing content: that just might be the content you engage with the most, and the algorithm blindly follows your whims and preference. I've used YouTube for many hours per day for several years. I've almost never seen a single…
That is, until you click even accidentally on a single outrage clickbait video, then youtube would immediately suggest at least 20 other videoa of the same kind and you have to click “not interested” to videos for several weeks until your feed is sane again. And IME, it doesn’t even have to be videos watched by most of the people, but a subset of “power users” who binge certain kind of videos are over represented on…
For me it takes a single round of a few "Not interested" clicks. Definitely not weeks, or even days.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We are, but the blame has to be shared, too. In many cases the algorithm is being reinforced by your and everyone's actions. It may not even necessarily be specifically trying to prioritize polarizing content: that just might be the content you engage with the most, and the algorithm blindly follows your whims and preference. I've used YouTube for many hours per day for several years. I've almost never seen a single…
No, it’s being driven by the lowest common denominator for engagement, which is distinct from personal preferences. For a self-contained example, spam in large Facebook groups always rises to the top, because many people comment asking it to be deleted, causing the algorithm to show it to more people, some of which comment, until a moderator finally kills the post. These kinds of side effects do not happen in a votin…
Love the use of the term "inauthentic". They cannot say "fake" anymore.
It's also a clever little bit of legal CYA. Coordinated inauthentic behavior' = fake accounts amplifying things. Actual extremists posting on main and organizing on FB? A-OK as long as they exercise a bare minimum of discretion and avoid discussing specific illegal activities.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We are, but the blame has to be shared, too. In many cases the algorithm is being reinforced by your and everyone's actions. It may not even necessarily be specifically trying to prioritize polarizing content: that just might be the content you engage with the most, and the algorithm blindly follows your whims and preference. I've used YouTube for many hours per day for several years. I've almost never seen a single…
> just might be the content you engage with the most, and the algorithm blindly follows your whims and preference No, it's the content that other people engage with. Disregarding the whole "engagement is a good metric of how much you want to see something" bullshit, if you served me food based on what other people like to eat, it would be a weird mix of gluten free vegan stuff, and also coke, pizza and doritos. I don…
I do want to see what other videos are watched by large numbers of people who've watched things I've already watched. That's how I discover new and interesting things. I've found tons of great content that way, and pretty much no clickbaity or LCD / popular crap seeps in (maybe once every few months, but the "Not interested" immediately takes care of it). I don't know how common my experience is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We are, but the blame has to be shared, too. In many cases the algorithm is being reinforced by your and everyone's actions. It may not even necessarily be specifically trying to prioritize polarizing content: that just might be the content you engage with the most, and the algorithm blindly follows your whims and preference. I've used YouTube for many hours per day for several years. I've almost never seen a single…
Sorry but this is a very naive view of human psychology. The Social Dilemma on Netflix does a good job of explaining why asking people to just exert more willpower is not the solution.
I'll watch that film, though.
Facebook itself, the corporation, is global political manipulation. Both https://joebiden.info/ and https://kamalaharris.info/ are blocked on Facebook, and on Instagram which is owned by Facebook. The block is silently applied to private messages on Instagram, with the sender seeing it go out but the recipient never getting it. Facebook isn't turning a blind eye. Facebook is actively participating, by purposely block…
Every .info domain I've ever seen in my life has been a spam site. I didn't click the link because of that preconceived notion and opted to google it instead. And of course, this is the tagline: > Creepy Uncle Joe Biden is back and ready to take a hands-on approach to America's problems! Sure enough, it's a spam site.
OK, you don't like the content. That's fine.
Did you get it in an unsolicited email, fax, text message, phone call, or other intrusive communication? Unless it did, it is not spam.
The video is worth watching. It's silent and short, probably animated GIF files, just showing actual stuff that has been on things like C-SPAN.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They can be contradicted, but it's very hard to definitively refute them in a way that will convince somebody who wishes to believe it. Even people without a stake in it will often conclude, "I heard X, I heard Y, sounds to me like it could go either way." If anything, they're taken in by how short and empirical those statements are: it makes them seem more true because after all, if it were false I'd see the evidenc…
> "I heard X, I heard Y, sounds to me like it could go either way." Still an improvement compared to "I heard X", which is the default with radio and books.
Obviously that doesn't always work, but social media makes it effectively impossible. Not only do you have official sources of propaganda, you live in a swamp of anecdotes that are impossible to refute or contextualize. The radio says "Group X is bad", and you yourself may never have had any trouble with X, but a flood of "X did [bad-thing] to me" stories on social media can make you think that you've got personal exposure to it.
Ultimately, I believe the problem rests with the individuals who are willing to be manipulated. The human organism has a massive security hole that has been very well exploited, and I've got no idea how to patch it. No amount of coherent, cogent argument will change the mind of somebody bent on having a target to hate, and people have gotten very good at insinuating those targets.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd like to see you stare that Billion Dollars in the eye and say 'no thank you, these are my principles'. Bonus points if you can do it with your spouse and children by your side.
Instagram did that. However for social networks you make money from ads, so they’re rotten in a different way.
https://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/04/09/facebook-buys-instag...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry but this is a very naive view of human psychology. The Social Dilemma on Netflix does a good job of explaining why asking people to just exert more willpower is not the solution.
Maybe it is. I just am repulsed by stuff like that and try to get it out of my sight whenever possible. I figure most of HN is the same way. It pretty much never appears on any of my feeds, since I don't hesitate to click the "Not interested" button on the rare occasions it appears. I'll watch that film, though.