Why is Jack Dorsey still hosting Hunter Biden's child porn on twitter? Why hasn't Hunter Biden been arrested for the child porn!?
ARREST THE MOTHERFUCKER NOW!
Now what? The collateral damage of a tech backlash
11–20 of 31 posts
Re: Now what? The collateral damage of a tech backlash
#12"We’re only allowing trusted journalists to post, blocking disinformation before it has a chance to root itself in our systems."
Sure.
Perhaps that's why Google shut it's RSS Reader down, too expensive to moderate.
Re: Now what? The collateral damage of a tech backlash
#13I’d be OK if twitter and Facebook just died out and nothing replaces them. I left FB in 2012 because of its toxicity. Twitter was working great until they started pushing stuff that my connections like. The whole tower needs to come down and we really need to consider what a healthy information network looks like - because this ain’t it.
You have to wonder why what it shows you is toxic. My FB feed is mostly animals and math jokes, a few updates on my friends' kids plus some landscapes from my home country. This is what I want from it and nothing more. Am I using it wrong? Are you?
In large I stopped using FB 4-5 years ago but at the time I got alot of videos of people hurting themself in "funny" accidents.
I distaste those kind of videos. I have no clue why the algorithm spammed me with those.
Re: Now what? The collateral damage of a tech backlash
#14So the latest fake news is that everyone is being told to shut off operating system updates permanently on their devices to "block apple and google". ::slams head into desk:: We're already seen that censoring fake news on vaccine safety only has fanned the flames because the perpetrators point out "they wouldn't censor us if it wasn't true!". So yeah, while these platforms have the right to do so, when you have a mon…
> because the perpetrators point out "they wouldn't censor us if it wasn't true!" Where did they point that out, if they were censored? Seems like (and this is not nearly as ironic as it sounds) we need better/smarter censorship, not less. The fundamental disease here isn't the propagation of incorrect facts, it's the evolution of communities where alternative facts become accepted canon. Once you have everyone's eye…
[dead]
Re: Now what? The collateral damage of a tech backlash
#15Earlier quoted context omitted.
You have to wonder why what it shows you is toxic. My FB feed is mostly animals and math jokes, a few updates on my friends' kids plus some landscapes from my home country. This is what I want from it and nothing more. Am I using it wrong? Are you?
Your post is probably why we should regulate the algorithms they use. It's bullshit that they can influence what shows up on your feed, and then they blame you for it. "Oh, you must be the toxic one if all you see is toxicity..."
I think your projecting your own feelings onto the parent comment by adding "you must be toxic" to the beginning of that sentence. The only thing the parent commenter said is that the pattern of one's use can feed into the toxicity of their feed, without any judgment of that pattern per se. Nontoxic patterns that lead to toxicity exposure could be something as simple as "likes to read and post (non-toxically) about politics or social causes".
The takeaway of the parent comment was that there are plenty of ways to use FB, perhaps in constrained ways, that don't lead to toxicity and don't require leaving the platform.
Im not personally a big FB user, but have applied this very successfully to my Reddit and Twitter usage. I follow/subscribe to a very small number of very high-quality accts/subreddits, and am selective about when I read the comments. I'm able to derive a ton of value from this[1] pattern of usage without running into the bottomless pits of stupidity and malice that the average reddit/Twitter experience contains.
[1] including the holy grail: a political discussion forum full of a wide variety of viewpoints and populated solely by mental adults
Re: Now what? The collateral damage of a tech backlash
#16So the latest fake news is that everyone is being told to shut off operating system updates permanently on their devices to "block apple and google". ::slams head into desk:: We're already seen that censoring fake news on vaccine safety only has fanned the flames because the perpetrators point out "they wouldn't censor us if it wasn't true!". So yeah, while these platforms have the right to do so, when you have a mon…
> because the perpetrators point out "they wouldn't censor us if it wasn't true!" Where did they point that out, if they were censored? Seems like (and this is not nearly as ironic as it sounds) we need better/smarter censorship, not less. The fundamental disease here isn't the propagation of incorrect facts, it's the evolution of communities where alternative facts become accepted canon. Once you have everyone's eye…
And when the government has those new censorship systems good enough to decide which facts are the incorrect ones, they will act with restraint? The Cia will never inflict a trump on another country, out of their sense of morality? I would rather such things not exist.
Re: Now what? The collateral damage of a tech backlash
#17I am thinking that social media is inherently bad. Let's say I subscribe to RSS feeds. Maybe I subscribe to a few dozen sites. With multiple writers, I might exposed to the stupidity of maybe a few hundred people. With social media, I am in a sense subscribed to the stupidest, or most outrageous posts of tens or millions of people. Stupidity sells. Outrage sells.
> With social media, I am in a sense subscribed to the stupidest, or most outrageous posts of tens or millions of people. Stupidity sells. Outrage sells.
I don't follow. Do you pick your following list at random from all existing Twitter ids? I follow maybe twenty people, with a very high bar for intellectual honesty, and I have no exposure to "the stupidest or most outrageous posts" on the network.
Re: Now what? The collateral damage of a tech backlash
#18I am thinking that social media is inherently bad. Let's say I subscribe to RSS feeds. Maybe I subscribe to a few dozen sites. With multiple writers, I might exposed to the stupidity of maybe a few hundred people. With social media, I am in a sense subscribed to the stupidest, or most outrageous posts of tens or millions of people. Stupidity sells. Outrage sells.
The problem is that even newspapers have clickbait titles now a days - e.g. "I talked continuously for 5 hours. This is what happened."
This two sentence headline style is very jarring to me. Almost like it insults my intelligence.
Re: Now what? The collateral damage of a tech backlash
#19I am thinking that social media is inherently bad. Let's say I subscribe to RSS feeds. Maybe I subscribe to a few dozen sites. With multiple writers, I might exposed to the stupidity of maybe a few hundred people. With social media, I am in a sense subscribed to the stupidest, or most outrageous posts of tens or millions of people. Stupidity sells. Outrage sells.
I've recently been thinking that the current version of social media is our generation's version of smoking. I think it's going to take another 25 years but eventually I think it will be seen as something detrimental to everyone's (mental) health that people have to work to remove themselves from.
I tend to be pretty disdainful of HN's hysteria towards social media, mainly because it's fairly easy to use each platform in healthy ways.
But I fully agree with this analogy. The average person isn't hyper-analytical about the choices they make, from media consumption to diet to the amount and quality of their online time, and the default usage path of social media is fraught with I'll effects for both the user and society. And that's to say nothing of generation being raised on these services, who have far less of an ability to resist specific usage patterns when they start (similar to teen smoking).
Re: Now what? The collateral damage of a tech backlash
#20So the latest fake news is that everyone is being told to shut off operating system updates permanently on their devices to "block apple and google". ::slams head into desk:: We're already seen that censoring fake news on vaccine safety only has fanned the flames because the perpetrators point out "they wouldn't censor us if it wasn't true!". So yeah, while these platforms have the right to do so, when you have a mon…
It reminds me of how incredibly everyone handled the election fraud claims.
The media's method was apparently to loudly and forcefully deny them as quickly as possible.
So you had Giuliani come out and give his press conference laying out what they were allegedly going to prove. Immediate response is that they have no evidence. But they said explicitly that they were going to provide the evidence soon, once they'd finished preparing to present it.
Then they come out to present all of this witness testimony and the response while it's happening is that they're repeating already debunked claims. Already debunked because they hadn't previously provided anything like witness testimony to support them.
So now even if the claims are bunk, these media outlets have forcefully denied them at a point in time when they clearly couldn't have known that yet. Which destroyed their credibility to deny the claims later, once there had actually been enough time to evaluate them.
Which increased the number of people believing the claims to a degree that tech companies started censoring them. So now you're here:
> "they wouldn't censor us if it wasn't true!"
Impossible for anyone to convincingly deny the claims at this point because you've created the impression among believers that the truth is being suppressed. Because that's what censorship does.
Made a thousand times worse because it was right after notoriously censoring the NY Post over an article that turned out to be true, destroying their ability to claim that they were only censoring things that were false.
Who else thinks this isn't going well?