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

The effects of algorithms on the public discourse

tekhne.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 97 posts

Re: The effects of algorithms on the public discourse

#51

Post by SilverElfin »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #48
freddie_mercury wrote: post #30

I'm not sure "we" traded anything. Back in the day an absolutely minuscule portion of humanity read blogs. Technology Connections has 3 million subscribers. That's over 10x the number of people reading the most popular blogs in the world circa 2010[1]. And Technology Connections is only a moderately popular channel. If you look at the bigger channels like Mark Rober it is more like 350x. What actually happened was th…

> Back in the day an absolutely minuscule portion of humanity read blogs What I think it comes down to is us, on one level, grasping the benefits of elitist gatekeeping, but, on another level, not wanting to acknowledge that such mechanisms have benefits. The elitism I speak of isn’t one of wealth, family or schooling. Instead it’s intellectual curiosity. That seems to correlate with the foregoing; hence the discomfo…

Well said. In particular about the lowest common denominator and about the curious and clever. So moving it away from the Internet growing up and focusing on democratic societies, what do you think the conclusion is. What’s a better model than a non gatekeeping democratic one?

Re: The effects of algorithms on the public discourse

#52

Post by JumpCrisscross »

whycome wrote: post #35
gobdovan wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think avoiding algorithms completely is tricky. Even things like podcast guests or suggestions from friends feel as manipulable but in a human way. What works for me is checking if people I respect in a domain also blog or link elsewhere. That is how I found Peter Norvig's blog... or maybe it was on hacker news.

Veritasium is another popular creator that would overlap with the HN audience. It deliberately uses different thumbnails and titles when videos are new. It's a human (afaik) using the A/B suggestions in the back end. So it's like a second degree AI manipulation.

That crap—together with the nonsensical kinetic weapon video—genuinely turned me off his channel. It clowned him up in a way that felt gimmicky, almost aimed for children versus adults.

Re: The effects of algorithms on the public discourse

#53

Post by SilverElfin »

arjie wrote: post #49
freddie_mercury wrote: post #30

I'm not sure "we" traded anything. Back in the day an absolutely minuscule portion of humanity read blogs. Technology Connections has 3 million subscribers. That's over 10x the number of people reading the most popular blogs in the world circa 2010[1]. And Technology Connections is only a moderately popular channel. If you look at the bigger channels like Mark Rober it is more like 350x. What actually happened was th…

The problem for people who preferred the text-based approach is that previously they were over-represented and found things they liked everywhere. Like you say, the vast majority of people prefer image reels, short-form video, microblogs like Twitter, or comments on aggregators like Reddit or HN. That's the truth, but that original cohort of people lost their place and there's no obvious substitute. I think that's pr…

That better product but with a smaller audience similar to the earlier days would feel very different in practice. It’s sad that the original cohort got overrun and lost their place, and have nowhere to go. Maybe HN is one such place. I think something similar is felt by the original cohorts of people when cities and neighborhoods and ways of life change.

Re: The effects of algorithms on the public discourse

#54

Post by JumpCrisscross »

SilverElfin wrote: post #51
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Back in the day an absolutely minuscule portion of humanity read blogs What I think it comes down to is us, on one level, grasping the benefits of elitist gatekeeping, but, on another level, not wanting to acknowledge that such mechanisms have benefits. The elitism I speak of isn’t one of wealth, family or schooling. Instead it’s intellectual curiosity. That seems to correlate with the foregoing; hence the discomfo…

Well said. In particular about the lowest common denominator and about the curious and clever. So moving it away from the Internet growing up and focusing on democratic societies, what do you think the conclusion is. What’s a better model than a non gatekeeping democratic one?

> what do you think the conclusion is. What’s a better model than a non gatekeeping democratic one?

Sort of the question for our generation. I wish I had an answer.

Re: The effects of algorithms on the public discourse

#55

Post by themafia »

sjdhshjd wrote: post #20

I’m all for human-written content. But, AI search is here. When you write for hours will it be just to have AI quote or amalgamate it, so you can have a link sit by it that few will click on? Or will you submit it to some old Yahoo-like index, HN, or peer-messaging app that reaches maybe typically 10 people typically or 100,000 once for your 15 minutes of fame? When you write something fairly long, don’t do it for th…

> it be just to have AI quote or amalgamate it

We'd call that simple plagiarism or copyright violation in any other context.

> unless you need the money

Who doesn't need money? Also shouldn't the people spending the money decide who gets it?

> AI can’t take that away from you, yet.

AI isn't taking anything. Google is. Consciously.

> It’s only a matter of time now before Armageddon.

Who told you that? Google? You see the flaw in that strategy?

Re: The effects of algorithms on the public discourse

#56

Post by SilverElfin »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #54
SilverElfin wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well said. In particular about the lowest common denominator and about the curious and clever. So moving it away from the Internet growing up and focusing on democratic societies, what do you think the conclusion is. What’s a better model than a non gatekeeping democratic one?

> what do you think the conclusion is. What’s a better model than a non gatekeeping democratic one? Sort of the question for our generation. I wish I had an answer.

To get more specific - by which measurable trait would you gatekeep, if you would prefer gatekeeping? Age? Income? IQ? Some sort of social reputation score? Civics tests? What would lead to better choices but also avoid populist revolution?

Re: The effects of algorithms on the public discourse

#57

Post by the_af »

dostick wrote: post #44
HeavenFox wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah I don't understand why all YouTubers seem to despise "the algorithm", and some of the creators I follow even created their own rival, Nebula, that does not have "the algorithm". Without "the algorithm" I wouldn't find out about your channel in the first place!

What is the purpose of that algorithm. I think YouTube’s algorithm purpose is to keep people engaged. The ethical algorithm would only suggest content user is interested in or may be interested based on interests of other users with similar subscriptions.

YouTube mostly suggests videos related to other videos I've watched or to my subscriptions.

So it already works like this for me.

It almost never suggests random crap. I'd be hard pressed to come up with an example where I was puzzled or infuriated by one of YT's suggestions...

(Facebook and Reddit, on the other hand, are way more random and infuriating).

Re: The effects of algorithms on the public discourse

#58

Post by jrowen »

foobar1962 wrote: post #34

The "old" internet still exists and is alive and well on what I'll call "single issue" web based forums. Photo.net is still here, as are similar groups for cars, bikes, and rabbit holes I have yet to break my ankle in. Unlike social media, few of these forums have mechanisms to "like" or upvote posts so there is no reward for posting just to attract attention, whether it be positive or negative. That changes the dyna…

Unlike social media, few of these forums have mechanisms to "like" or upvote posts so there is no reward for posting just to attract attention, whether it be positive or negative.

Those types of forums are great, but just as a counterpoint, I get a lot of that type of value from Facebook Groups as well. There are niche specialty interest groups with people of different skill depths conversing on probably just about anything.

It's mixed in with the rest of your Facebook feed most of the time so it is a categorically different experience/"community" than an independent forum but I don't think the "like" mechanics materially affect the discussion in those places.

Re: The effects of algorithms on the public discourse

#59

Post by [deleted] »

dostick wrote: post #44
HeavenFox wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah I don't understand why all YouTubers seem to despise "the algorithm", and some of the creators I follow even created their own rival, Nebula, that does not have "the algorithm". Without "the algorithm" I wouldn't find out about your channel in the first place!

What is the purpose of that algorithm. I think YouTube’s algorithm purpose is to keep people engaged. The ethical algorithm would only suggest content user is interested in or may be interested based on interests of other users with similar subscriptions.

[deleted]

Re: The effects of algorithms on the public discourse

#60

Post by zrobotics »

chongli wrote: post #37
LocalH wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't want any algorithms, AI or human, curating my default feed. I want my feed to be a chronologically-ordered listing of the content creators I choose to follow and like. If I want to explore the algorithm, that should still be possible, but it shouldn't be the default.

You say that, but then you probably won’t like it when it happens. Some creators post way more than others. Low frequency posters tend to get swept away by the current. Some of my favourite YouTube channels post very infrequently (one video every few months) whereas others post every single day. The YouTube algorithm seems to know this and pins the low frequency guys’ new videos right to the top when they come out.

This, exactly. I find there's an inverse relationship between posting frequency and video quality. Channels like hyperspace pirate (DIY science/chemistry/physics) may post several times in a week if they are super into a project, then go 2 months without a new video. Those channels post videos that I will more reliably watch, since they don't post filler. Whereas one of the few video game channels I subscribe to (manyatruenerd) posts basically every day. Some of the videos are good, but there's a lot of filler. And that's unavoidable when trying to work to a schedule like that. I spent a few months trying to push a commit to my hobby project every day to see that green github history, and a lot of that stuff ended up being worse quality.

It's a tricky balance, since I don't necessarily want just a feed of my subscriptions, it really depends on what type of content I want to watch/engage with. There's a ton of time where I just want background noise while I work on something, that's where the previously mentioned video game channel and similar content are what I want. Whereas there's certain content (like hyperspace pirate or applied science) where if they post a video I don't watch until I can actually give it my full attention. I have my complaints with YouTube, but out of the main social media sites it seems to do the best job with being able to present an algorithmic feed that is actually useful. I tried TikTok for a few weeks, and as much as people were talking their algorithm up I just couldn't reliably signal what videos I actually wanted to watch. There's some very good content there, but for me at least I spent more time struggling against the algorithm since it kept trying to show videos I just don't care about.

And TikTok is leagues better than Instagram or Facebook. There are a few communities that I have to engage with in those sites, since that's just where the people involved are posting. But goddamn are the algorithmic feeds on both just a dumpster fire. The only content I have engaged with on Facebook for 5+ years is RC vehicle related, mainly the local racing club and other groups. And yet my Facebook feed is all political or Ai rage bait, they dint even show posts from my high-school friends. I see it every time I log in, and haven't clicked on any of the suggested posts I years. It's frustrating, since I'm providing them with tons of signal on what content I actually want to see, and that content is on their site. Meta just does such a poor job of allowing you to curate your feed that I gave up on their sites years ago. I wouldn't mind being able to see my old friends posts (although most of them also don't post anymore due to these issues) or at least see content related to my interests. I might spend more time in the site if that were the cadlse, instead I log on for 10 minutes once a week to see when the next race is scheduled.

Post reply on HN