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

161–170 of 210 posts

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

#161

Post by baxuz »

gyomu wrote: post #113
grishka wrote: post #109

Social media as a concept can definitely be fixed. Just stop doing algorithms, period. Strip the platforms of any and all initiative. Make them dumb pipes. Stop pretending that people want to use social media for entertainment and news and celebrities. Stop trying to turn it into interactive TV. Stop forcing content from outside of my network upon me. Make the chronological feed the only option. Social media is meant…

> Strip the platforms of any and all initiative. Make them dumb pipes. Stop pretending that people want to use social media for entertainment and news and celebrities. Stop trying to turn it into interactive TV. Stop forcing content from outside of my network upon me. Make the chronological feed the only option. Congrats, you now have platforms no one will care about, as attention span gets sniped by competitors who…

You wouldn't as competitors who use these dark patterns should be regulated out of existence in normal countries.

Every other form of mass media is regulated, for good reason.

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

#162

Post by tgv »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #148
dragonwriter wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Stop pretending that people want to use social media for entertainment and news and celebrities People actually want media, social and otherwise, for exactly that. > Stop forcing content from outside of my network upon me. There are social media apps and platforms that don't do that. They are persistently less popular. People, by and large, do want passive discovery from outside of their network, just like they do,…

People want addictions. The answer is to regulate addictive algorithms, not to give them more things to be addicted to. But addictions are wonderfully useful politically, so that's unlikely to happen. The point is simple - an algorithm is a form of meta-content. It's curated and designed, not neutral. And so are its commercial, psychological, and political effects. Currently SM companies have been allowed to use algo…

> People want addictions.

I think that's incorrect. Many addicts despise their addiction. A better way to look at it is: people can get addicted easily. Nobody gets addicted to paper press lubricant. The addiction is initiated by a positive experience, which often means: pleasure. Paper press lubricant doesn't provide that, but alcohol and facebook do.

It may not be much of a distinction, but sometimes it helps to think about/see it in another way.

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

#163

Post by jmiskovic »

delichon wrote: post #67
unsignedint wrote: post #59

Social media as a vessel for diverse discussion is a tall order. It’s too public, too tied to context, and ultimately a no-win game. No matter how carefully you present yourself, you’ll end up being the “bad guy” to someone. The moment a discussion touches even lightly on controversy, healthy dialogue becomes nearly impossible. Think of it this way: you’re hosting a party, and an uninvited stranger kicks the door ope…

Whitelisting solves the problem for me. I curate every tweet I see with a browser extension. Strangers can't kick down the door. I only see content from my direct follows. It dramatically reduces the stress. Maybe a little like horse blinkers.

I see how this works for you and many others but I hate this practice. You are not turning strangers away, you just preemptively shadow-ban everyone.

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

#164

Post by rickdeckard »

grishka wrote: post #142
rickdeckard wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a dilemma. There might be demand, but this "platform A" will be in competition with a dopamine-focused engagement "platform B" which also supports to host updates from "the lives of people you follow". The majority of people will then have both installed but spend more time on "platform B" as it is actively engaging them. Platform A will again end up in competition for user-attention with Platform B, as it needs…

> The majority of people will then have both installed but spend more time on "platform B" as it is actively engaging them. And why would that be a problem? Most people also spend more time sleeping than using social media, so what? Let them be. Give them a tool that they would decide how to use best to suit their lifestyle. > Platform A will again end up in competition for user-attention with Platform B, as it needs…

> And why would that be a problem?

I'm referring to the journey that will move people away from "Platform A" again because of Platform B. That's a problem to solve because the value of the social network to an individual is largely the PEOPLE on that network.

> It would not, because it would not be run by a commercial organization.

Agree, taking "platform A" out of the profit-wheel could help. But still in a normal adoption scheme you need to make it worthwhile for a critical mass of people to use it for OTHER people to also consider it.

In the end I believe you will need another external driver to solve this (i.e. restricting for-profit social media), because that other platform "has all the people and the dopamine".

-

There is a more simple parallel situation one can observe: People trying to move from WhatsApp/FB-messenger/.. to i.e. Signal.

It's JUST about direct messaging, but anecdotally the majority of these transitions fail to complete because not all involved are actually on-board to abandon the old Messenger.

So you succeed and your close group installs Signal and starts to use it with you, but each one is also part of other groups who are still also on the legacy app. Everyone has both apps installed, but slowly communication starts to move back to the legacy app because it's the "superset" of all friend-groups.

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

#165

Post by slightwinder »

grishka wrote: post #109

Social media as a concept can definitely be fixed. Just stop doing algorithms, period. Strip the platforms of any and all initiative. Make them dumb pipes. Stop pretending that people want to use social media for entertainment and news and celebrities. Stop trying to turn it into interactive TV. Stop forcing content from outside of my network upon me. Make the chronological feed the only option. Social media is meant…

> Social media as a concept can definitely be fixed. Just stop doing algorithms, period.

Algorithms only make them worse, not bad. The flaws are there, because people.

> Stop pretending that people want to use social media for entertainment and news and celebrities.

No, people buy this content, because they want it, not because it's there.

> Social media is meant to be a place where you get updates about the lives of people you follow.

Strange claim. Nothing is preventing people from doing exactly this.

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

#166

Post by slightwinder »

fireflymetavrse wrote: post #101

Why can't it be fixed? Just remove algorithms and show only subscribed content in chronological order. That's how most of the early platforms worked and it was fine.

That will fix barely anything. Early platforms were also bad, but they were new, filled with people still discovering things and trying out this new world, people who had more hope, a more positive view on the world, a better upbringing and experience from the offline-world. This is gone now and won't come back. The global village is settled, and it's burning.

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

#167

Post by grishka »

slightwinder wrote: post #165
grishka wrote: post #109

Social media as a concept can definitely be fixed. Just stop doing algorithms, period. Strip the platforms of any and all initiative. Make them dumb pipes. Stop pretending that people want to use social media for entertainment and news and celebrities. Stop trying to turn it into interactive TV. Stop forcing content from outside of my network upon me. Make the chronological feed the only option. Social media is meant…

> Social media as a concept can definitely be fixed. Just stop doing algorithms, period. Algorithms only make them worse, not bad. The flaws are there, because people. > Stop pretending that people want to use social media for entertainment and news and celebrities. No, people buy this content, because they want it, not because it's there. > Social media is meant to be a place where you get updates about the lives of…

> Nothing is preventing people from doing exactly this.

I try my best to do this but it's futile.

See, even if you don't use the algorithm, the algorithm still uses you. So, for example, you can't just discuss something on Twitter with your followers. Sometimes it would decide to show your tweet to a bunch of random people with the radical version of the views opposite to yours, and you will be forced to use the block button way too damn much. You can't opt out of having your tweets recommended to strangers.

Even when that doesn't happen, many of your followers would still miss your posts if you don't appease the algorithm because they would still use the algorithmic feed — whether knowingly or because of all the dark patterns around that setting (it's very hidden, never sticks, or both).

So no, the very existence of the algorithmic feed is the problem, it ruins the experience for everyone regardless of whether they use it or not.

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

#168

Post by slightwinder »

_mlbt wrote: post #61
unsignedint wrote: post #59

Social media as a vessel for diverse discussion is a tall order. It’s too public, too tied to context, and ultimately a no-win game. No matter how carefully you present yourself, you’ll end up being the “bad guy” to someone. The moment a discussion touches even lightly on controversy, healthy dialogue becomes nearly impossible. Think of it this way: you’re hosting a party, and an uninvited stranger kicks the door ope…

I still think old school linear forums are the best format for online discussion. They’re not perfect by any means, but I think they still beat all the alternatives I’ve tried.

Linear is awful. Discussions are always so bad with them. The only advantage is that following the newest message is easier, which still doesn't prevent people from ignoring them if the thread becomes too long.

The main reason why you might think that way, is less the format, and probably more the moderation, and lower amount of people in those forums. I mean take this forum here, is far better than twitter or any other social media-sloop. Smaller Subreddits, especially with good moderation, are also far better than big Subreddits.

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

#169

Post by slightwinder »

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

Technically correct, but choice is here very simplified. The system is unable to understand WHY people engage with something, and in which way. That's poisoning the pool, and enforcing certain content and types of presentation.

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

#170

Post by Zak »

epgui wrote: post #155
smackeyacky wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They post but it doesn’t get read, all their friends feeds are just swamped with crap like theirs is.

But then we’re back to blaming the algorithm.

Algorithmic choices are likely a major contributor to the phenomenon. If posting vacation photos on Facebook gets interactions from friends and family, more people will do it. If it doesn't, fewer people will.
Post reply on HN