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

Study: Social media probably can't be fixed

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 210 posts

Re: Study: Social media probably can't be fixed

#11

Post by 9rx »

derbOac wrote: post #7
duxup wrote: post #2

A lot of talk goes into how Facebook or other social media use algorithms to encourage engagement, that often includes outrage type content, fake news, rabbit holes and so on. But here's the thing ... people CHOOSE to engage with that, and users even produce that content for social media platforms for free. It's hard to escape that part. I remember trying Bluesky and while I liked it better than Twitter, for me it wa…

> while I liked it better than Twitter, for me it was disappointing that it was just Twitter, but different I feel exactly the same way. I think there needs to be a kind of paradigm shift into something different, probably something that people in general don't have a good schema for right now. Probably something decentralized or federated is necessary in my opinion, something in between email and twitter or reddit?…

> Probably something decentralized or federated is necessary in my opinion, something in between email and twitter or reddit?

So, Usenet? The medium is the message and all that, sure, but unless you change where the message originates you are ultimately going to still end up in the same place.

Re: Study: Social media probably can't be fixed

#12

Post by farceSpherule »

Social media is the new smoking...

Widespread adoption before understanding risks - embraced globally before fully grasping the mental health, social, and political consequences, especially for young people.

Delayed but significant harm - can lead to gradual impacts like reduced attention span, increased anxiety, depression, loneliness, and polarization

Corporate incentives misaligned with public health - media companies design platforms for maximum engagement, leveraging psychological triggers while downplaying or disputing the extent of harm

Re: Study: Social media probably can't be fixed

#13

Post by notTooFarGone »

duxup wrote: post #2

A lot of talk goes into how Facebook or other social media use algorithms to encourage engagement, that often includes outrage type content, fake news, rabbit holes and so on. But here's the thing ... people CHOOSE to engage with that, and users even produce that content for social media platforms for free. It's hard to escape that part. I remember trying Bluesky and while I liked it better than Twitter, for me it wa…

>people CHOOSE to engage with that

brains are wired that way. Gossip and rage bait is not something that people actively decide for, it's subconscious. It's weird saying that this is the problem of individuals - propaganda is effective not because people are choosing to believe it.

Re: Study: Social media probably can't be fixed

#14

Post by reactordev »

PaulHoule wrote: post #3

I work in survey research and I'm rather appalled at how many people would rather survey a sample of AIs than a sample of people and claim they can come to some valid conclusion as a result. There are many ways AIs differ from real people and any conclusions you can draw from them are limited at best -- we've had enough bad experiments done with real people https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment#Int…

I trust your judgement more than Ars Technica.

For us layman, the flaw of using AI trained on people for surveys is, human. Humans have a unique tendency to be spontaneous, wouldn’t you say?

How would a focus group research team approach this when they’re bombarded by AI solutions that want their research funds?

Re: Study: Social media probably can't be fixed

#15

Post by cwmoore »

westurner wrote: post #10

Do all of these points apply to the traditional media funhouse mirror that we love to hate, too? > "The [structural] mechanism producing these problematic outcomes is really robust and hard to resolve." I see illegal war, killing without due process, and kleptocracy. It's partly the media's fault. It's partly the peoples' fault for depending on advertising to subsidize free services, for gawking, for sharing without…

Sure can!

“No smoking, gambling, or loose women.”

TaDAaaah!

Re: Study: Social media probably can't be fixed

#16

Post by barbazoo »

fellowniusmonk wrote: post #9
SkepticalWhale wrote: post #8

I'd like to see more software that amplifies local social interactions. There are apps like Meetup, but a lot of people just find it too awkward. Introverts especially do not want to meet just for the sake of meeting people, so they fallback on social media. Maybe this situation is fundamentally not helped by software. All of my best friendships organically formed in real-world settings like school, work, neighborhoo…

I ran a co-working space social club that resolved this issue for many introverts in 2015-2017. This is at core a 3rd places issue, haven't had the capital to restart it post covid.

That sounds interesting. How did that work, did you rent a place for coworking and then opened it up for the social aspect?

Re: Study: Social media probably can't be fixed

#17

Post by WaltPurvis »

fellowniusmonk wrote: post #9
SkepticalWhale wrote: post #8

I'd like to see more software that amplifies local social interactions. There are apps like Meetup, but a lot of people just find it too awkward. Introverts especially do not want to meet just for the sake of meeting people, so they fallback on social media. Maybe this situation is fundamentally not helped by software. All of my best friendships organically formed in real-world settings like school, work, neighborhoo…

I ran a co-working space social club that resolved this issue for many introverts in 2015-2017. This is at core a 3rd places issue, haven't had the capital to restart it post covid.

That's very interesting. Do you have time to elaborate a bit?

Re: Study: Social media probably can't be fixed

#18

Post by KaiserPro »

duxup wrote: post #2

A lot of talk goes into how Facebook or other social media use algorithms to encourage engagement, that often includes outrage type content, fake news, rabbit holes and so on. But here's the thing ... people CHOOSE to engage with that, and users even produce that content for social media platforms for free. It's hard to escape that part. I remember trying Bluesky and while I liked it better than Twitter, for me it wa…

> But here's the thing ... people CHOOSE to engage

Kinda, but they also don't really realise that they have much more control over the feed than they expect (in certain areas)

For the reel/tiktok/foryou-instagram feeds, it shows you subjects that you engage with. It will a/b other subjects that similar people engage with. Thats all its doing. continual a/b to see if you like what ever flavour of bullshit is popular.

Most people don't realise that you can banish posts from your feeds by doing a long press "I don't like this" equivalent. It takes a few times for the machine to work out if its an account, groups of accounts of theme that you don't like, and it'll stop showing it to you. (threads for example took a very long time to stop showing me fucking sports.)

Why don't more people know this? because it hurts short term metrics for what ever bollocks the devs are working on. so its not that well advertised. just think how unsuccessful the experiments in the facebook app would have been if you were able to block the "other posts we think you might like" experiments. How sad Zuckerberg would be that his assertion was actually bollocks?

Re: Study: Social media probably can't be fixed

#19

Post by ElijahLynn »

I'm reading Tim Urban's book titled "What's Our Problem".

It definitely explains the different types of thinking that I'm making up our current society, including social media. I haven't got to the part yet where he suggests what to do about it, but it's fascinating insight into our human behavior in this day and age.

Re: Study: Social media probably can't be fixed

#20

Post by add-sub-mul-div »

PaulHoule wrote: post #3

I work in survey research and I'm rather appalled at how many people would rather survey a sample of AIs than a sample of people and claim they can come to some valid conclusion as a result. There are many ways AIs differ from real people and any conclusions you can draw from them are limited at best -- we've had enough bad experiments done with real people https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment#Int…

"We trained a model on Twitter and Reddit content and were shocked to discover it generates a terrible community."

It's so weird to live in a time when what you just said needs to be said.

Post reply on HN