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

Social Networks: It's worse than you think (2020)

meta.ath0.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 174 posts

Re: Social Networks: It's worse than you think (2020)

#161

Post by mdp2021 »

tcmart14 wrote: post #89
mdp2021 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> no amount of moderating There can be automated systems to fix that - to rank contributions , with the aim to boost the signal and reduce the noise, with the final aim to facilitate a lean and productive debate and information sharing; and also to connect contributions , to reduce dispersion, etc. Such systems to rank contributions are related to the theory of voting systems (quantitative ranking of voters and optio…

It could be automated, but would we want it to be? I don't get to see twitter's or facebook's back-end, but my guess is there is probably already a large sum of automation. Which leads to some of the very things people are complaining about. Right now, I don't see a path forward for automating moderating, meanwhile appeasing everyone. So, I think we would just see the same criticisms of HN emerge that are already pre…

> would we want it to be?

Do we want to live in a sophisticated democracy as opposed to a naïve democracy? Some would.

Would you like to be part of an information exchange and debate platform using sophisticated systems as opposed to an open billboard? Some would.

It is very doable. It was done in history and it can be done technically in many ways.

Take for example HN: before you can downvote, you must have consolidated your position as contributor. Very simple - yet affecting the result, the "experience". Much more sophisticated techniques can be used.

Malicious parties could attack a system exploiting its weaknesses: yes, this is why take precautions like testing systems theoretically and practically, and implement defence systems.

> automating moderating

The point is not to automate moderation - it is not about the work of DanG. It is about reducing the noise generated by users "in development" and boosting the signal donated by "developed" users.

In the area of "ranking according to the favouring of favoured users, recursively" is a way to implement it.

Re: Social Networks: It's worse than you think (2020)

#162

Post by xyzzy21 »

Of course it does.

As a generating function, all you need to get a "Power Law" distribution of connections is a "preferential attachment" probability either statically or dynamically/transiently.

Finite attention automatically creates that preferential attachment because you want to avoid "wasting the precious resource of attention"!!

Re: Social Networks: It's worse than you think (2020)

#163

Post by bluepoint »

I don’t get it. The probability a message gets shared n times is the inverse of a power of n. How do you go from here to low quality messages get shared more as the total number of messages. I guess I could go and read the original research, but if anyone can explain, I will not mind.

Re: Social Networks: It's worse than you think (2020)

#164

Post by bluepoint »

bluepoint wrote: post #163

I don’t get it. The probability a message gets shared n times is the inverse of a power of n. How do you go from here to low quality messages get shared more as the total number of messages. I guess I could go and read the original research, but if anyone can explain, I will not mind.

I guess the question is how is quality measured (message length?) and how it is considered.

Re: Social Networks: It's worse than you think (2020)

#165

Post by dukeyukey »

ramijames wrote: post #67
crdrost wrote: post #7

Related to this, there is an intimacy of small community which makes you feel valued and a proper contributor, that social networks really seem to oppose: they want to make the network bigger, you are part of the biggest world context, everybody on TikTok is eating a habanero while watching Bob Ross, so only if I do the same nonsense do I have a chance of 100 people noticing and liking the video and maybe opting to s…

Growth is always the default expectation. It's part of humanity at this point. I personally feel that it is destructive. I hate the idea that static and stagnant are NEGATIVES. They are not. They have value.

I think humanity is meant to work to a "grow and bud model", where when a community starts getting unmanageably large, a number "bud off" and form their own. Like how the Greek city-states formed associated colonies across the Mediterranean, or how large friend groups almost always have sub0units within them. It even happens to subreddits, but since it hurts the network effect social media companies strive for they want to prevent this happening.

Re: Social Networks: It's worse than you think (2020)

#166

Post by lonk11 »

mattowen_uk wrote: post #155
lonk11 wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about this way to automatically address the Eternal September problem: When you upvote an item - you connect stronger to people who upvoted that same item. When you downvote an item - you connection to those who upvoted it becomes weaker. The content is ranked based on how strongly you are connected to people you upvoted each item. That way when a lot of clueless/uninformed people come in and start upvoting usele…

On the surface this seems reasonable, but in reality I think the users would end up inside echo chambers very quickly.

Yes, an echo chamber is a concern. But unlike other systems, you are in total control of who you get your content from. You are responsible for what you see. Which I think is the best place to have this responsibility. This does not work for everyone (e.g., kids don't know what is better for them), but hopefully many people will find it useful.

Re: Social Networks: It's worse than you think (2020)

#167

Post by Dracophoenix »

FabiansSuck111 wrote: post #52
mananaysiempre wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This strongly reminds me of Kornhauser’s three levels of social relations ( Politics of Mass Society , 1959): > We can conceive of all but the simplest societies as comprising three levels of social relations. The first level consists of highly personal or primary relations, notably the family. The third level contains relations inclusive of the whole population, notably the state. The second level comprises all inte…

You can reduce all of this to the simple observation that: There are little consequences when the pool of people you have access to is massive; and there remains no reason to become emotionally invested in a certain "core" of people, when you can easily jump to another if that "core" is not perfect. This leads to a feedback loop that stunts relationship "depth." Or further: when you have options, the default modus op…

You say that like the alternative is any better. Historically small communities with high levels of "investment" had a heavy hand over the lives of their community members. They're practically cults that exist to "save" their investment from outside influences. To Kill a Mockingbird demonstrates how such societies function.

In my opinion, it's good to have options. It's good not to have an X-or-bust social investment in a particular community because, as the 20th century has demonstrated, communities don't last forever. They change, they warp, they include, they exclude, they rise ,and they disappear. Societies are built to serve an instrumental function. When a society fails to provide that function in any meaningful way, people will vote with their feet when they can find another goal that suits their purposes. Even if such a goal is outside their current limits. This his been the way of humanity for thousands of years, so I don't understand why should we stop people from having options. I don't see a reason why people risk sinking with a ship they no longer have an interest being aboard.

Ideally one would have an arrangement that mimics the Viennese Cafe societies. Strict but fair rules on conduct, but ultimately leaving personal agency to oneself and one's confidants .

Re: Social Networks: It's worse than you think (2020)

#168

Post by AltonWells »

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #20
crdrost wrote: post #7

Related to this, there is an intimacy of small community which makes you feel valued and a proper contributor, that social networks really seem to oppose: they want to make the network bigger, you are part of the biggest world context, everybody on TikTok is eating a habanero while watching Bob Ross, so only if I do the same nonsense do I have a chance of 100 people noticing and liking the video and maybe opting to s…

Could you imagine if hypothetically, HN suddenly became the world's most popular social network? It would be unusable for it's current purpose and no amount of moderating could ever fix that. This sounds harsh but not everyone deserves to be heard all of the time- myself included.

That sounds horrible. This place has become a little solace of mine. There’s probably some theoretical threshold for when a community grows to a certain size it becomes more and more difficult to having meaningful discourse. The noise becomes too great

Re: Social Networks: It's worse than you think (2020)

#169

Post by tcmart14 »

mdp2021 wrote: post #161
tcmart14 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It could be automated, but would we want it to be? I don't get to see twitter's or facebook's back-end, but my guess is there is probably already a large sum of automation. Which leads to some of the very things people are complaining about. Right now, I don't see a path forward for automating moderating, meanwhile appeasing everyone. So, I think we would just see the same criticisms of HN emerge that are already pre…

> would we want it to be? Do we want to live in a sophisticated democracy as opposed to a naïve democracy? Some would. Would you like to be part of an information exchange and debate platform using sophisticated systems as opposed to an open billboard? Some would. It is very doable. It was done in history and it can be done technically in many ways. Take for example HN: before you can downvote, you must have consolid…

Interesting, I did not know that one had to be a 'developed' user to be able to down vote. I may have to look more into the history of this and see some examples of implementations. Thanks for the info!

Re: Social Networks: It's worse than you think (2020)

#170

Post by woko »

osrec wrote: post #93
2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you imagine if hypothetically, HN suddenly became the world's most popular social network? It would be unusable for it's current purpose and no amount of moderating could ever fix that. This sounds harsh but not everyone deserves to be heard all of the time- myself included.

I especially hate the trend of people deliberately saying something controversial, to get more comments/likes/publicity. One recent example is Piers Morgan in the UK, who randomly decided to criticise Emma Raducanu, a rather likeable British teenager, who just won the US open without dropping a set (including in qualifying rounds)! I can't understand why he would do that, other than to stir up some controversy, and g…

It would be interesting to monitor his number of followers before/after the controversy. For information, John Gibson, CEO of Tripwire Interactive, which is a videogame publisher, recently tweeted a controversial opinion about abortion, then had to step down from his job, yet his number of followers increased from 2.5K to 9K in the process.

This can be seen on websites like: https://socialblade.com/twitter/user/rammjaeger/monthly Picture: https://i.imgur.com/poc1QcE.png

Edit: when it comes to Piers Morgan, it does not seem to have been worth it. The last bump of followers happened in March.

Reference: https://socialblade.com/twitter/user/piersmorgan/monthly Picture: https://i.imgur.com/s7145UK.png

Post reply on HN