Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Algorithms don't cause filter bubbles, people do

news.findka.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 72 posts

Re: Algorithms don't cause filter bubbles, people do

#41

Post by 908B64B197 »

umvi wrote: post #8

I 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. Unsubscrib…

This was my observation as well.

Just like a garden, for a social media feed to grow it needs to be taken care of and curated. There's a block and mute button for that.

Re: Algorithms don't cause filter bubbles, people do

#42

Post by dharmab »

choward wrote: post #30
esperent wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I did the same, but I unfollowed everyone - literally everyone, including my family. Blissful peace! The obvious result of this was that I realized nothing changed when I did this, except for less useless info entering my eyes, and I gradually stopped using FB almost entirely. Now I check if there are any interesting events on every week or two, and that's it (although I still use messenger - attempts to get friends…

Just delete your account at this point. No reason to log into an account just to make it easier for Facebook to track you around the internet.

I keep an account for three reasons:

- To prevent identity theft by someone creating an account in my name.

- To access some local event planning that only happens on Facebook, e.g. local motorsport competition/HPDE events

- To access Facebook Marketplace

Re: Algorithms don't cause filter bubbles, people do

#43

Post by forgetfulness »

dragontamer wrote: post #34
dkdbejwi383 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They could lease the watertight container to you for a deposit, and when you return the watertight container to them, they clean it and re-use it.

What assurances do you have that said containers are washed between uses? A restaurant will wash their stuff to make sure that you're a return customer. But a big advantage of once-opened / once-disposed containers is that I can suddenly trust random street vendors with no relationship to me.

We clearly need insurance agencies that attest to the lifecycle of the receptacles as backed by a blockchain.

Or we could have laws and inspectors for that at the bottling facilities because the above is not going to work.

Re: Algorithms don't cause filter bubbles, people do

#44

Post by ceejayoz »

dragontamer wrote: post #34
dkdbejwi383 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They could lease the watertight container to you for a deposit, and when you return the watertight container to them, they clean it and re-use it.

What assurances do you have that said containers are washed between uses? A restaurant will wash their stuff to make sure that you're a return customer. But a big advantage of once-opened / once-disposed containers is that I can suddenly trust random street vendors with no relationship to me.

> What assurances do you have that said containers are washed between uses?

The same assurances I have that they didn't let a rat piss in it at the factory the first time around; inspections and safety regulations.

I get my milk in reusable glass bottles. I have absolutely zero concern that they forgot to wash them between uses.

Re: Algorithms don't cause filter bubbles, people do

#45

Post by yosito »

umvi wrote: post #8

I 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. Unsubscrib…

I've created several bubbles on Twitter by curating lists. One thing I don't want to see is outrage, so I remove anyone who posts outrage from my lists. And it actually works!

I've tried to create a bubble on Instagram of the content I want to see. But Instagram is more agressive about pushing algorithmic content at me against my will. After days of trying to train the algorithm, I got it to only show me real photos of travel and nature. But slowly new things are always creeping in. Liking one photo can set off echoes that are hard to get rid of. If I accidentally like a photo with a pretty girl in it, or someone's sweet workstation setup, or a map, or a meme, Instagram starts filling my feed with low quality junk related to those topics. Even the travel and nature photos are low quality junk. The inability to set up a feed of content I actually want to see (friends and genuine non-influencer travel photos with under 200 likes) is pushing me away from Instagram as a platform.

Facebook's news feed is so bad that I never scroll it at all.

For me, RSS via Inoreader is my new way to curate most of my content. The only problem is that most of my friends don't post RSS friendly content. Including friends in filter bubbles seems to be an area that no existing platform does a good job of anymore.

Re: Algorithms don't cause filter bubbles, people do

#46

Post by gruez »

umvi wrote: post #32
sokoloff wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Litterbug is a real thing though, IMO. I don't want Coke to sell me a handful of Coke; I want it in a watertight container. If, when I'm done with that container, I throw it on the ground, how is that Coke's fault? Same question for a fast-food wrapper. Do we think McDonalds should serve its food loose?

It doesn't have to be binary. Consumer is responsible for making sure packaging ends up in the trash/recycling bin, but manufacturer is responsible for making litter-resistant products and packaging. For example, if your product is wrapped in thin plastic that comes apart in multiple pieces when you try to take it off... it's going to be a high litter risk compared to a can of soda which is a single continuous piece…

>For example, if your product is wrapped in thin plastic that comes apart in multiple pieces when you try to take it off... it's going to be a high litter risk compared to a can of soda which is a single continuous piece of aluminum.

It's hard to win. Thin plastic = less materials consumed and less fuel spent on transport. Switching to thick plastic might make it harder to litter, but the flak will just shift to how wasteful the packaging is.

Re: Algorithms don't cause filter bubbles, people do

#47

Post by gruez »

dkdbejwi383 wrote: post #26
sokoloff wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Litterbug is a real thing though, IMO. I don't want Coke to sell me a handful of Coke; I want it in a watertight container. If, when I'm done with that container, I throw it on the ground, how is that Coke's fault? Same question for a fast-food wrapper. Do we think McDonalds should serve its food loose?

They could lease the watertight container to you for a deposit, and when you return the watertight container to them, they clean it and re-use it.

Multiple jurisdictions have bottle deposit schemes, which operate similar to what you described. It's not with reusable bottles though, presumably because the cost of transporting and cleaning the glass bottles outweighs the savings from reuse.

Re: Algorithms don't cause filter bubbles, people do

#48

Post by uihududhmd »

sokoloff wrote: post #24
floatrock wrote: post #9

And "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 enga…

Litterbug is a real thing though, IMO. I don't want Coke to sell me a handful of Coke; I want it in a watertight container. If, when I'm done with that container, I throw it on the ground, how is that Coke's fault? Same question for a fast-food wrapper. Do we think McDonalds should serve its food loose?

I will occasionally spend time picking up litter when I go on walks. The waste I find, in order of volume, is primarily: 1) Food packaging 2) Automobile detritus 3) Construction material

2 is because parts fall off of people's cars. 3 is because construction material will fall out of the pickup truck beds that are used by construction workers.

But the food packaging waste is dropped by people. If we accept the UX principle that it's easier to change the system than human behavior, then the best way to reduce the volume of litter would be to reduce food packaging waste. For example, if fast food, like McDonalds, were packaged in rapidly bio-degradable and low-pollutant things, like simple, un-dyed paper wrappings, then the amount of waste in the environment would be greatly reduced.

Re: Algorithms don't cause filter bubbles, people do

#49

Post by dragontamer »

ceejayoz wrote: post #44
dragontamer wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What assurances do you have that said containers are washed between uses? A restaurant will wash their stuff to make sure that you're a return customer. But a big advantage of once-opened / once-disposed containers is that I can suddenly trust random street vendors with no relationship to me.

> What assurances do you have that said containers are washed between uses? The same assurances I have that they didn't let a rat piss in it at the factory the first time around; inspections and safety regulations. I get my milk in reusable glass bottles. I have absolutely zero concern that they forgot to wash them between uses.

Reusable containers means that the container wasn't necessarily filled by Coca Cola. It could have been the street-vendor refilling glasses.

That's the thing. A disposable container guarantees that the bottle came from Coca Cola.

---------------

> I get my milk in reusable glass bottles.

But you don't get your reusable milk from a street vendor. You trust your deliveryman, you trust the company they work for. You have a working relationship with them. (Or maybe you pick it up from a grocery store that you trust).

I'm talking about a street vendor: someone you have absolutely no relationship with. How do you know that you can trust the street vendor?

A sealed disposable bottle offers guarantees that reusable containers do not. That's simply a fact.

Re: Algorithms don't cause filter bubbles, people do

#50

Post by dragontamer »

simias wrote: post #40
dragontamer wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What assurances do you have that said containers are washed between uses? A restaurant will wash their stuff to make sure that you're a return customer. But a big advantage of once-opened / once-disposed containers is that I can suddenly trust random street vendors with no relationship to me.

If you're willing to trust your restaurant you should also probably trust Coca Cola. Not because I think Coca Cola is more honest, but do you imagine the PR nightmare if employee #832453 captures a video on their smartphone of dirty bottles being reused? This type of fraud/malpractice is much more likely to be seen in small restaurants with little oversight and loose processes that at a multi-million dollar bottling…

The issue isn't Coca Cola forgetting to wash reusable bottles.

Its Street Vendor #455. Who is refilling reusable bottles and selling them to his customers. I'm talking about people sitting with coolers and ice, selling $1 soda or $1 water.

Post reply on HN