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

Toxicity on Social Media

thenoisyroom.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 136 posts

Re: Toxicity on Social Media

#111

Post by swed420 »

doginasuit wrote: post #105
swed420 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For most of its history, Reddit didn't have an algorithm that promoted stories beyond upvotes and time since posting, that might even still be the case. Reddit is heavily botted, including by capital interests, and has been for a long time. This includes basic up/down vote activity. > I think there is a significant percentage of users that do not initiate extreme content but participate in amplifying it. Yes, it's…

The problem with the bots explanation is that it is unfalsifiable. On top of that, this fits a very recognizable pattern of human behavior. I'm very skeptical that blocking all the bots would even move the needle.

It's unfalsifiable, therefore it isn't happening? Not very convincing for anyone who's engaged with these platforms where reactions happen seconds after your own clicks.

Alternatively, ask yourself, would monied interests be inclined to exploit these platforms? Of course they would. It'd need a solid explanation as to why they wouldn't.

Re: Toxicity on Social Media

#112

Post by __MatrixMan__ »

swed420 wrote: post #110
__MatrixMan__ wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Touche re: Zuck, but I still think that even had he started a saint, he'd be a sinner by now.

True, which is why you'd need well defined safeguards in place from the very beginning, with high visibility into the organization that you normally wouldn't find in a closed, for-profit business.

You mean like OpenAI back when it was a nonprofit?

Re: Toxicity on Social Media

#113

Post by nozzlegear »

dmbche wrote: post #87
gruez wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Reddit is heavily botted, including by capital interests. Is that why /r/all is consistently anti-capitalism and anti-business?

Read The society of spectacle by guy debord

Can you give us a summary, so we can discuss what you're alluding to without a several-day waiting period while we read the book?

Re: Toxicity on Social Media

#114

Post by [deleted] »

swed420 wrote: post #89
gruez wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So if reddit is more left than you are, it's "manufactured controlled opposition which is designed to look crazier than unchecked capitalism", and I guess if it's less left than you are, then they're a bunch of DINOs (LINOs?) like Manchin or Sinema?

It's a bunch of siloed group think offered in a variety of flavors. Definitely not a monolith, though basic liberal types (who virtue signal as being more "left" than they really are) might be the most common user. Siloed groups are the easiest to monetize to advertisers, and they're also not a threat to a faux democracy.

[deleted]

Re: Toxicity on Social Media

#115

Post by swed420 »

__MatrixMan__ wrote: post #112
swed420 wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True, which is why you'd need well defined safeguards in place from the very beginning, with high visibility into the organization that you normally wouldn't find in a closed, for-profit business.

You mean like OpenAI back when it was a nonprofit?

So figure out what they did wrong. It's going to have to be more original than the easily subverted traditional "nonprofit" model.

Re: Toxicity on Social Media

#116

Post by dmbche »

nozzlegear wrote: post #113
dmbche wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Read The society of spectacle by guy debord

Can you give us a summary, so we can discuss what you're alluding to without a several-day waiting period while we read the book?

Not really, or not better than Wikipedia would. Sometimes it's more pertinent to read than to chat about a thing you might read.

You can also not read it, you do you, but it's enlightening.

Re: Toxicity on Social Media

#117

Post by nozzlegear »

ishouldstayaway wrote: post #106
Arkhaine_kupo wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Despite this, we have still seen a steady trend toward extreme views on the platform. There were 3 conditions that were working and were removed very very quickly 1) it was a web application only. Which enforces an interaction that is more contientous 2) it skewed older. Compared to other sites like IFunny or Instagram the age profile was closer to 30 than 12. 3) the upvote/downvote mechanic was used to upvote rele…

(3) here was always just a fantasy. It never actually worked that way.

Agreed. Moderators would even try to use custom CSS to remove the downvote buttons on their subs to prevent people from downvoting comments they disagreed with, as that was against "reddiquette." But oftentimes you'd want to indulge your monkey brain and punish people who have differing opinions by making the number go down and their comments go gray.

Re: Toxicity on Social Media

#118

Post by doginasuit »

swed420 wrote: post #111
doginasuit wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with the bots explanation is that it is unfalsifiable. On top of that, this fits a very recognizable pattern of human behavior. I'm very skeptical that blocking all the bots would even move the needle.

It's unfalsifiable, therefore it isn't happening? Not very convincing for anyone who's engaged with these platforms where reactions happen seconds after your own clicks. Alternatively, ask yourself, would monied interests be inclined to exploit these platforms? Of course they would. It'd need a solid explanation as to why they wouldn't .

I never said I think it isn't happening, I just don't think it is driving the phenomenon. Platforms like Lemmy do not have enough traffic to justify a bot presence by monied interests and their general discussion communities are just as extreme as Reddit, if not more.

Re: Toxicity on Social Media

#119

Post by swed420 »

doginasuit wrote: post #118
swed420 wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's unfalsifiable, therefore it isn't happening? Not very convincing for anyone who's engaged with these platforms where reactions happen seconds after your own clicks. Alternatively, ask yourself, would monied interests be inclined to exploit these platforms? Of course they would. It'd need a solid explanation as to why they wouldn't .

I never said I think it isn't happening, I just don't think it is driving the phenomenon. Platforms like Lemmy do not have enough traffic to justify a bot presence by monied interests and their general discussion communities are just as extreme as Reddit, if not more.

Likely because distributed platforms like lemmy/mastodon suffer from the "fiefdom" problem, plus siloed communities forming due to ideologically defined rules.

https://www.noemamag.com/the-last-days-of-social-media/

Re: Toxicity on Social Media

#120

Post by avidruntime »

okr wrote: post #73
dwa3592 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I personally feel Reddit is extremely polarized and toxic. It really depends on the community.

Yeah, have the same sentiment towards Twitter before it has been bought by Mr. Musk. You were always close to being banned. And the American government was colluding. I don't like the tone on X now, but hey, no one silences me, and that is awesome.

How was the US Gov colluding? My recollection of the twitter files was it largely blew out of proportion (for non-tech aligned audiences) that Twitter received tips from CISA regarding misinformation/disinformation and Twitter decided whether to take action on accounts, sometimes they did, sometimes they didn't.
Post reply on HN