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

171–180 of 210 posts

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

#171

Post by slightwinder »

grishka wrote: post #167
slightwinder wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 blo…

> So, for example, you can't just discuss something on Twitter with your followers.

That is a problem with the platform. Nothing is stopping you from changing the platform. You want it to be different, but don't want to use the different that already exists?

> 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

That's still their own "choice". They decide to use Twitter, and they decide to stay on the algorithmic view. But ok, to be fair, Twitter, and other big networks, are kinda unstable on which view they offer and use by default. Forcing them to give more stable control to the user would be good. But I doubt it would fix anything on the grand scale.

> So no, the very existence of the algorithmic feed is the problem

The algorithmic feed exists mainly because there is too many content, so you will miss something anyway. Removing it will fix nothing for most people, it will only change what you miss. People have used self-configured algorithms even before social media existed. The demand has always been there.

But of course, we could talk about the actual implementation and it's dark leanings.

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

#172

Post by _mlbt »

slightwinder wrote: post #168
_mlbt wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ot…

There's a couple really big things I like about linear. As you said you can follow the thread of conversation in chronological order. Another big thing for me is that it doesn't have comment karma. Upvotes and downvotes result in echo chambers that suppress alternative viewpoints. PG got it almost right here by making you have to meet a threshold to downvote, but I think it would be better if downvotes didn't exist here at all. It becomes an "I disagree with your opinion" button. Also, threaded discussions encourage people to just highjack one of the top voted threads instead of replying to a more relevant person later down the line.

Also on the topic of moderation, I feel like less is more. Unless it's spam, child pornography, or threats of violence, it should probably just be left alone. Reddit in particular is extremely over moderated these days. Outside of a handful of subreddits, it is impossible to post conservative views because moderators will ban you for them. Just basic stuff like "I support and here's why..." results in a ban. Even just being subscribed to /r/conservative is enough to be automatically banned from several other subreddits. While there are exceptions, most of the moderators are in actuality just a bunch of petty, censorious tyrants.

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

#173

Post by _mlbt »

incompatible wrote: post #108
squigz wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't really need to see opposing points of view as though they are novel thoughts that I've never considered before I mean, that's fine, if you think that you can consider all conceivable angles thoroughly, by yourself. I for one welcome opposing views, but I suppose if my idea of that meant "religion or conspiracy theories" I'd probably be avoiding it too.

I follow people I can learn from, not people who try to convince me that everything I already know is wrong. I don't follow people who post misinformation, reject science, or who think that ad hominem attacks are a valid form of debate. There are a lot of them out there!

> I don't follow people who post misinformation

A little off topic, but where do you get your news? I am having the hardest time finding credible news sources that aren't full of misinformation or bias to the point of being Soviet Union Pravda levels of propaganda.

The best I've been able to do is pick a few sources that are left leaning and a few that are right leaning and try to glean the truth myself using critical thinking and for particularly important topics, more in depth research independently. The problem is that this is very time consuming and exhausting.

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

#174

Post by [deleted] »

AuthAuth wrote: post #73
delichon wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How do you find new things to follow? If everyone did this it would be extremely rare to encounter new content.

[deleted]

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

#175

Post by grishka »

slightwinder wrote: post #171
grishka wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 blo…

> So, for example, you can't just discuss something on Twitter with your followers. That is a problem with the platform. Nothing is stopping you from changing the platform. You want it to be different, but don't want to use the different that already exists? > 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 algorithm…

There usually isn't "too much content" when you only see content from accounts you follow, and especially when there are no logo accounts, only people.

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

#176

Post by const_cast »

dragonwriter wrote: post #138
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…

> 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,…

The trouble is people want to smoke and drink, too.

The human mind is more easily exploitable than any computer.

Of course people want to see divisive content. Divisive content is engineered to trigger large emotions, which humans naturally respond to. That's what heroin exists - it feels good. Really, really good. Of course you don't need only good feelongs, bad feelings can shape behavior too.

The problem comes in when we start shifting from making products that simply cause these behavior changes to instead making products engineered to elicit the biggest response possible.

Its very easy to do, too. Want to sell more cigarettes? Add butane to the wrapping so it burns better. Concentrate the nicotine. Do all the obvious stuff. The more bad you make it, the better it will sell.

Same thing with, say, Facebook. Want people to use Facebook more? More doomerism, more lies, more misinformation, more Jesus Christ, more click bait. People want the addictive stuff, that's why we call it addictive.

So yes, social media apps without these tools are unpopular and generally fail. In the same way a nicotine-free cigarette would fail.

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

#177

Post by const_cast »

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…

More addictive products will always win, because they're more addictive.

That doesn't mean we need to one-up each other and repeatedly hyper optimize until we're making the digital equivalent of fentanyl-laced cigarettes.

Also, we can actually ban stuff. I know it's not a physical product, but that doesn't mean we just have to fucking put up with whatever and deal with it.

We'd never let a company sell fentanyl-laced cigarettes. But when it comes to tech, we all just throw up our hands and say "well we tried nothing and we're all out of ideas!"

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

#179

Post by slightwinder »

_mlbt wrote: post #172
slightwinder wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ot…

There's a couple really big things I like about linear. As you said you can follow the thread of conversation in chronological order. Another big thing for me is that it doesn't have comment karma. Upvotes and downvotes result in echo chambers that suppress alternative viewpoints. PG got it almost right here by making you have to meet a threshold to downvote, but I think it would be better if downvotes didn't exist h…

> As you said you can follow the thread of conversation in chronological order.

But it's not chronological, it's posting order. It's pretty common to have sub-threads with different focus and timeflow emerging in the middle of linear threads

> Another big thing for me is that it doesn't have comment karma.

Implementation-detail. And Linear boards can also have karma-systems.

But on the other side, it supports a community-driven moderation.

> It becomes an "I disagree with your opinion" button.

Yes, that is a problem. There should be more options available, maybe a limited set of emojis to communicate the impression of something, instead of bland down/upvotes. It kinda works well on Github and Discord, but has less usage by the systems there.

> Also, threaded discussions encourage people to just highjack one of the top voted threads instead of replying to a more relevant person later down the line.

Which is not bad? At least you can ignore them. Linear has no option for this, all is the same mess.

> Also on the topic of moderation, I feel like less is more.

Depends on the topic, community and size, also the country. Illegal content has always to be moderated by law. And in general, offtopic has to be moderated.

> "I support and here's why..." results in a ban

Again, on or offtopic? Each subreddit has a focus, and if it's out of this focus, it's justified to remove it. For example, I would not like to see discussions about PHP in a C-Subreddit, this is simply a waste of my time and attention.

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

#180

Post by const_cast »

RiverCrochet wrote: post #21
farceSpherule wrote: post #12

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 compa…

Not an accurate analogy in my opinion, but close. - Smoking feels good but doesn't provide any useful function. - Some social media use feels good and doesn't provide any useful function, but social media is extremely useful to cheaply keep in touch with friends and family and extremely useful for discovering and coordinating events. Fortunately the "keep in touch" part can be done with apps that don't have so much o…

Smoking, too, also has useful functions related to socialization. It was a product and drug first, but a social tool second. Half the reason people smoked is because other people did. They wanted to go outside, have a chitchat, and have a smoke.

Now that smoking is gone in the US, a lot of that is dead, and for the worse. A lot of places now don't even have balconies or other outdoor sections. Every piece of area is dedicated towards productive activity, whether that be shopping, working, or eating. There's very little "just sit around" places in modern businesses and workplaces. The joy of random encounter has been significantly decreased. Everything is now in passing.

Post reply on HN