Algorithms don't cause filter bubbles, people do
news.findka.com
Algorithms don't cause filter bubbles, people do
1–10 of 72 posts
Re: Algorithms don't cause filter bubbles, people do
#2I’ve never understood this logic - algorithms are written by people. It’s not like they descend down from heaven.
Re: Algorithms don't cause filter bubbles, people do
#3Read the whole thing before you rage the title.
Re: Algorithms don't cause filter bubbles, people do
#4> That, however, is one of the reasons I spend so much time working on recommender systems. There is always an algorithm. The default one promotes rage, controversy and misinformation. But we don’t have to stick with the default.
No we don't. But does anyone think that Twitter would have risen as it has if it did not select for rage and controversy? There is an algorithm on another layer of the stack that filters out more neutral content: The free choices of users in an open market. If Twitter (et al.) did make an effort to screen out its most viral content it would simply lose market share to a platform that doesn't.
Re: Algorithms don't cause filter bubbles, people do
#5On the subject of "should we blame algorithms", here is some nice new research with an elegant field experiment, which suggests that yes, Facebook's algorithm does lead to filter bubbles:
Re: Algorithms don't cause filter bubbles, people do
#6The crux of the article, summarised by its two final sentences:
> That, however, is one of the reasons I spend so much time working on recommender systems. There is always an algorithm. The default one promotes rage, controversy and misinformation. But we don’t have to stick with the default.
Re: Algorithms don't cause filter bubbles, people do
#7I think the conclusion sums it up:
> There is always an algorithm. The default one promotes rage, controversy and misinformation. But we don’t have to stick with the default.
And I guess the real problem is that the financial incentives are set up such that sites like Facebook are motivated to choose[1] algorithms that are most suited at stoking engagement via rage and controversy.
[1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-knows-it-encourages-di...
Re: Algorithms don't cause filter bubbles, people do
#8I created my own bubble on Facebook. People would write or share these inflammatory political posts I disagreed with, but I just knew if I commented it would cause contention (which I wanted to avoid since these are my friends), so instead I "unfollowed". A few dozen unfollows later, and I'm now magically in a bubble where my feed is devoid of inflammatory political posts!
I did the same thing with reddit. Unsubscribed to subreddits I didn't want to see anymore and subscribed to ones I did, and now my reddit front page is 100% programming links, gamedev links, 3d modelling, cooking, and a few other niche interests I have.
Re: Algorithms don't cause filter bubbles, people do
#9And "litterbug" was a term invented by the packaging industry in a PR campaign that shifted blame about packaging waste from the manufacturers to the consumers.
This is a low-effort content marketing fluff piece that just says this company's recommendation engine has a "serendipity knob." It avoids the pernicious bits like how business models built on eyeball engagement result in a death march towards maximizing engagement metrics, and engineering the most addictive filter bubble has proven a pretty effective way to juice some PM's quarterly numbers.
Make a post on how to break that model, don't say "we have a serendipity knob tuned to 9.4%!"
Re: Algorithms don't cause filter bubbles, people do
#10The "people do" half of the headline isn't really addressed in the article, but it links to a piece[1] that proposes a mechanism.
[1]: https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/17/the-toxoplasma-of-rage...