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

The case against social media is stronger than you think

arachnemag.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 304 posts

Re: The case against social media is stronger than you think

#251

Post by techpineapple »

Lerc wrote: post #11

Part of me thinks that if the case against social media was stronger, it would not be being litigated on substack. A lot of things suck right now. Social media definitely give us the ability to see that. Using your personal ideology to link correlations is not the same thing as finding causation. There will be undoubtedly be some damaging aspects of social media, simply because it is large and complex. It would be hi…

I think the problem with social media is it’s easy to exploit, all the most powerful people in the world perceive themselves to benefit from social media. This isn’t true for something like smoking.

Re: The case against social media is stronger than you think

#252

Post by bluGill »

wkat4242 wrote: post #156
armchairhacker wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No doubt the specific algorithms used by social media companies are bad. But what is "non-algorithmic" curation? Chronological order: promotes spam, which will be mostly paid actors. Manual curation by "high-quality, trusted" curators: who are they, and how will they find content? Curation by friends and locals: this is probably an improvement over what we have now, but it's still dominated by friends and locals who…

> Also, studies have shown people focus more on negative ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negativity_bias ) and sensational ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salience_(neuroscience)#Salien... ) things (and thus post/upvote/view them more), so an algorithm that doesn't explicitly push negativity and sensationalism may appear to. This is exactly why it's a problem. It doesn't even matter whether the algorithm is trained s…

It isn't just social media. I'm been identified as a republican and the pervious owners of my house democrats, and since forwardinu has expired I get their 'spam' mail. There names are different, but otherwise the mail from each party is exactly the same 'donate now to stop [other parties'] evil ageneda. they know outrage works and lean into it.

Re: The case against social media is stronger than you think

#253

Post by AdamN »

dfee wrote: post #174

I often wonder when I see articles like this if HN counts as social media. And then, the continuous re-discovery or the ails of social media on social media is a trip, in itself.

I don't think it has the hallmarks of social media (aggressive engagement mechanisms, etc...). We've had newsgroups for 30+ years and social media requires more than just message boards. The owner needs to push the content such that there is enough engagement to make money from advertising (or monthly fees).

Re: The case against social media is stronger than you think

#254

Post by CM30 »

narag wrote: post #237

If you're a politician, you need people to vote for you. "Your" people will. Try not to alienate too much others so you can fish moderates and get to 50%. If you're an "influencer" you need engagement. You can live off a 10% easily. And you need retention. So keep the message heated.

Hmm, I'm not sure the former holds true anymore. We're seeing societies getting far more polarised with some extreme rhetoric and and proposals coming from political parties, especially in places like the US and Western Europe.

Kinda makes me wonder if politicians and political parties are fishing for engagement and focusing on the most extreme parts of their supporter base too.

Re: The case against social media is stronger than you think

#255

Post by 1vuio0pswjnm7 »

1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote: post #155

Person A and person B (or group B) want to communicate by using the internet Idea: Use person C's website This was never a good idea for A and B but turned out to be a great idea for C C derives the benefit, C became a billionaire, but it is taking a very long time for A and C to realise they are not getting a good deal Sadly in 2025 A and B believe there is no other way to communicate via the internet other than thr…

s/A and C/A and B/

Re: The case against social media is stronger than you think

#256

Post by boppo1 »

Lerc wrote: post #11

Part of me thinks that if the case against social media was stronger, it would not be being litigated on substack. A lot of things suck right now. Social media definitely give us the ability to see that. Using your personal ideology to link correlations is not the same thing as finding causation. There will be undoubtedly be some damaging aspects of social media, simply because it is large and complex. It would be hi…

The Nepalese just elected a govenment on Discord. Who says we can’t litigate on substack? Hell, it might be the future.

Re: The case against social media is stronger than you think

#257

Post by zyxzevn »

The problem with social media (and all media) is opinion-based censorship, causing group-think. And the chaos of replies that are uncategorized.

Different opinions do matter. But due to the algorithms, the most emotional responses are promoted. There is no way to promote facts or what people think are facts.

So most discussion will be extremely emotional and not based on facts and their value. This is even true in scientific discussions.

Combined with group-think, these emotions can grow and lead to catastrophic outcomes.

Re: The case against social media is stronger than you think

#258

Post by btreecat »

zyxzevn wrote: post #257

The problem with social media (and all media) is opinion-based censorship, causing group-think. And the chaos of replies that are uncategorized. Different opinions do matter. But due to the algorithms, the most emotional responses are promoted. There is no way to promote facts or what people think are facts. So most discussion will be extremely emotional and not based on facts and their value. This is even true in sc…

> The problem with social media (and all media) is opinion-based censorship, causing group-think. And the chaos of replies that are uncategorized.

All people are biased. It's impossible to also avoid bias needed to filter out the firehose of data.

What your describing is often a form of moderation.

> Different opinions do matter. But due to the algorithms, the most emotional responses are promoted. There is no way to promote facts or what people think are facts.

This is tuneable. We have tuned the algos for engagement, and folks engage more with stuff they emotionally react to.

People could learn to be less emotionally unstable.

> So most discussion will be extremely emotional and not based on facts and their value. This is even true in scientific discussions.

I think your over fitting. Moderation drives a lot of how folks behave in a community.

> Combined with group-think, these emotions can grow and lead to catastrophic outcomes.

Group think is also how we determined mamales are mamales and the earth isn't the center of the universe. Sometimes a consensus is required.

Re: The case against social media is stronger than you think

#259

Post by hsartoris »

btreecat wrote: post #258
zyxzevn wrote: post #257

The problem with social media (and all media) is opinion-based censorship, causing group-think. And the chaos of replies that are uncategorized. Different opinions do matter. But due to the algorithms, the most emotional responses are promoted. There is no way to promote facts or what people think are facts. So most discussion will be extremely emotional and not based on facts and their value. This is even true in sc…

> The problem with social media (and all media) is opinion-based censorship, causing group-think. And the chaos of replies that are uncategorized. All people are biased. It's impossible to also avoid bias needed to filter out the firehose of data. What your describing is often a form of moderation. > Different opinions do matter. But due to the algorithms, the most emotional responses are promoted. There is no way to…

> People could learn to be less emotionally unstable.

How does it make sense to make billions of people responsible for abating the consequences of choices made by a few social media companies?

Re: The case against social media is stronger than you think

#260

Post by delis-thumbs-7e »

stack_framer wrote: post #95

I did my own informal research study—I quit social media cold turkey. My findings: I feel much better. I don't need any other data.

Same here. Even very depressing news do not cause and endless circle of anxiety and scrolling, when you don’t have constant new enforcement in form of comments, I just get bored, switch off and take some distance - as we should. I already stopped using FB after 2016 when I noticed that instead of being better informed - like I felt I was - I was actually dumber and knew less what was going on. After that I have gradually quit forums, IG, reddit. Onlyone left is youtube, which I watch occasionally to watch some comedy. Ifeel better, more calm and I feel I am on the driver’s seat.

I think it is insane that we give these companies this much power and influence in our lives and societirs without them contributing almost nothing.

Post reply on HN