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

My Feed, My Way

pm.gov.au

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 162 posts

Re: My Feed, My Way

#101

Post by LoganDark »

blfr wrote: post #21

Why do people (or at least politicians pretend to) believe that social networks are popular despite the content algos and not because of them? The reason Tik Tok blew up is because it shows you what you want to see without you twiddling with a dozen dials. Maybe giving people what they want is not great for them. I am ok with this argument. But then "giving people control" won't change anything. Vast majority of user…

These algorithms can be incredibly predatory towards people who engage with content they don't want to see, because they're optimizing for engagement, not enjoyment.

Engagement does not correlate with want. I know people who hated every second of their time on TikTok because it kept showing them only the most awful and traumatic shit, but for the same reason, they couldn't just leave because the reason it was traumatic was because they felt terribly guilty to leave it alone. They were shown all sorts of threats about how terrible of a person they'd be if they didn't like, share, comment, etc. and they were scared out of their mind into having to do it, and that only taught the algorithm to show them more -- to seek out only the worst, most horrible and awful and traumatic content to show them because that scared them the most and compelled them the most. It's awful, horrible, sure they shouldn't have been on TikTok at all (no one should), but it shouldn't have done that to them either

Re: My Feed, My Way

#102

Post by suddenlybananas »

achenet wrote: post #96
vintagedave wrote: post #93

> Just as we have basic safety standards for cars, toys or food, the duty of care applies basic standards for the online products we use every day. Aussie here. Great to see this. I don't think this goes far enough: I'd like to see addictive algorithms, content, and doomscrolling banned entirely. Not an option to see a different feed. Illegal. It's manipulative, hurts people, hurts children: make it illegal.

Please don't start randomly prohibiting things because you dis-approve of those things. We have, at this point, over a 100 years of evidence showing that prohibition of psychoactive substances (alcohol, cannabis, cocaine, etc) doesn't actually do much to reduce consumption but do create an immense amount of suffering not just for anyone participating in the trade or consumption of those substances, but also anyone re…

Is there anything you think would be appropriate to prohibit?

Re: My Feed, My Way

#103

Post by wewewedxfgdf »

florkbork wrote: post #84
wewewedxfgdf wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But he DID say it, right? Or are you saying that because it's Reddit/The Daily Mail, he DIDN'T say it? What are you talking about? It's widely quoted and well known he said it so where are you coming from.

No, it's your source; you prove your claims. I'll give you a hint though - the article doesn't even quote him, it just puts out a spicy headline. What he actually said and the context: "Ban social media. Keyboard warriors can anonymously say anything at all. Without any fear.", with regard to a misinformation bill. Considering the sources deliberately stripped everything of context and you've repeated it without chec…

Here is the exact clip:

https://video.reclaimthenet.org/articles/albanese-dictator-s...

Re: My Feed, My Way

#104

Post by latexr »

drewstiff wrote: post #80
blfr wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, it has gone further. You wouldn't hear "kill all men" at a uni in the 90s either. But I am not convinced that this is social media because hardline feminism predates it significantly.

But could it be that formerly unrealistic levels of exposure has normalised these things that always existed, and now they are mainstream and affecting kids __due to social media__ ?

Bingo. And algorithmic social media feeds reward fringe opinions—the more hateful the better—because those drive “engagement” which translates to attention, fame, money. Which means people are incentivised to be as controversial as possible. They don’t even have to fully believe what they preach, they just have to ensure they can enrage a large enough number of people. Which in turn brings the people who really believe those things out of the woodwork and the slime ball of hate gets bigger and rolls faster.

Social media as a technology isn’t necessarily the root cause of all those problems. But it is the medium by which those were allowed and incentivised to proliferate at an ever increasing pace.

Re: My Feed, My Way

#105

Post by dbspin »

gitowiec wrote: post #51
blfr wrote: post #21

Why do people (or at least politicians pretend to) believe that social networks are popular despite the content algos and not because of them? The reason Tik Tok blew up is because it shows you what you want to see without you twiddling with a dozen dials. Maybe giving people what they want is not great for them. I am ok with this argument. But then "giving people control" won't change anything. Vast majority of user…

Someone measured that if a user is teenager boy, it will take Tik Tok 9 minutest to serve misogynistic content...

The thing that doesn't get written about is that precisely the same situation occurs for women. Decentering men is equivalent to MGTOW. The torrent of misandrist content on social media utterly dwarfs the amount of 'red pill' / manosphere or similar content. It's mainstream in a way outright misogynistic content hasn't been for decades. Worse still, it's almost impossible to have this discussion without the immediate repost of 'but actually men are terrible', or some other such nonsense.

There's a very old fashioned 'battle of the sexes' being pushed by algorithmic content, and it's having visible toxic effects on the capacity of people to socialise, form relationships, engage in social reproduction and function normally in society. There's a vast torrent of such poison aimed at both men and women. Pretending it's only occurring to men, or that only men are being radicalised, is refusing to engage with the problem.

The comments section of literally every mainstream video on instagram reels, tiktok and the like that in any way touches on gender, masculinity, femininity etc - isn't dominated by misogynistic comments and hasn't been for years. But rather thousands of 'not all men, but always a man', 'yaas goddess', 'men aren't lonely enough', and countless other shibboleths.

The normalisation of FLINTA only spaces (and accommodation) and the like offline has brought these dynamics into the real world in ways that further isolate and dehumanise.

Re: My Feed, My Way

#106

Post by jl6 »

achenet wrote: post #96
vintagedave wrote: post #93

> Just as we have basic safety standards for cars, toys or food, the duty of care applies basic standards for the online products we use every day. Aussie here. Great to see this. I don't think this goes far enough: I'd like to see addictive algorithms, content, and doomscrolling banned entirely. Not an option to see a different feed. Illegal. It's manipulative, hurts people, hurts children: make it illegal.

Please don't start randomly prohibiting things because you dis-approve of those things. We have, at this point, over a 100 years of evidence showing that prohibition of psychoactive substances (alcohol, cannabis, cocaine, etc) doesn't actually do much to reduce consumption but do create an immense amount of suffering not just for anyone participating in the trade or consumption of those substances, but also anyone re…

"tax and regulate" isn't immune from second-order effects either. Set the tax high enough and you'll get smuggling gangs with all the same tendencies.

Re: My Feed, My Way

#107

Post by achenet »

suddenlybananas wrote: post #102
achenet wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please don't start randomly prohibiting things because you dis-approve of those things. We have, at this point, over a 100 years of evidence showing that prohibition of psychoactive substances (alcohol, cannabis, cocaine, etc) doesn't actually do much to reduce consumption but do create an immense amount of suffering not just for anyone participating in the trade or consumption of those substances, but also anyone re…

Is there anything you think would be appropriate to prohibit?

things that directly harm other taxpayers - murder, physical violence, theft, false slander/reputational attacks...

prohibiting things that harm the individual should not be the role of government, IMO. Government, in the liberal/Enlightenment tradition, is there as a protector of your 'rights' to life, liberty, and property. While it has a duty to protect you from things which could harm you (eg junk food/sugary drinks), it also has a duty to let you do what you choose to do, even if it's 'bad' for you (eg eat junk food and drink sugary drinks).

Hence the compromise - you can smoke cigarettes and drink Coca-Cola, but the makers of cigarettes and soft drinks have to warn you beforehand, and the transaction may be more taxed than things like basic foods.

Re: My Feed, My Way

#108

Post by AlienRobot »

blfr wrote: post #21

Why do people (or at least politicians pretend to) believe that social networks are popular despite the content algos and not because of them? The reason Tik Tok blew up is because it shows you what you want to see without you twiddling with a dozen dials. Maybe giving people what they want is not great for them. I am ok with this argument. But then "giving people control" won't change anything. Vast majority of user…

Kind of ridiculous, isn't it? Personally I think recommendation algorithms should be more powerful, customizable, and transparent. Currently they just make too many assumptions about the user without providing mechanisms to directly assign positive and negative weights to categories of content, which is what makes them unusable as a tool.

Re: My Feed, My Way

#109

Post by irjoe »

pasc1878 wrote: post #88
yoz-y wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reading and conversing with a stranger? Maybe not every time but at least once in a while?

I read but on my phone or ebook reader and have done so for nearly 20 years. Especially since mass market paperbacks were replaced by larger ones that do not fit in my pocket or bookshelves. I am in England – It is considered very odd to talk to strangers on a train or bus

I would say it's pretty common to talk to strangers on the train in England. I could just be the "Northerner terrifying Londoners by saying Hello" though. I do know not to start a conversation with a stranger on the tube.

Re: My Feed, My Way

#110

Post by xtiansimon »

armchairhacker wrote: post #15

I’d prefer similar to Doctorow, that governments simply make scraping and republishing (anything that anyone who consents can access) explicitly legal, then alternate frontends may appear with their own algorithms.

Does that include the social networks themselves? Essentially forcing APIs again?
Post reply on HN