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

Study: Social media probably can't be fixed

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 210 posts

Re: Study: Social media probably can't be fixed

#151

Post by grishka »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #148
dragonwriter wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Stop pretending that people want to use social media for entertainment and news and celebrities People actually want media, social and otherwise, for exactly that. > Stop forcing content from outside of my network upon me. There are social media apps and platforms that don't do that. They are persistently less popular. People, by and large, do want passive discovery from outside of their network, just like they do,…

People want addictions. The answer is to regulate addictive algorithms, not to give them more things to be addicted to. But addictions are wonderfully useful politically, so that's unlikely to happen. The point is simple - an algorithm is a form of meta-content. It's curated and designed, not neutral. And so are its commercial, psychological, and political effects. Currently SM companies have been allowed to use algo…

Yes, people want addictions. So give them addictions. Just don't sacrifice actual social media for that. Ideally, in my view of the world anyway, there would be separate commercial addiction-focused platforms like TikTok, and separate non-addictive, pure social media platforms like the fediverse, preferably run by nonprofits.

Re: Study: Social media probably can't be fixed

#153

Post by HPsquared »

grishka wrote: post #109

Social media as a concept can definitely be fixed. Just stop doing algorithms, period. Strip the platforms of any and all initiative. Make them dumb pipes. Stop pretending that people want to use social media for entertainment and news and celebrities. Stop trying to turn it into interactive TV. Stop forcing content from outside of my network upon me. Make the chronological feed the only option. Social media is meant…

That's the old vBulletin forum approach. Recommendation algorithms solve the problem of scale when these are too large. Winding back the clock doesn't work, things evolve to the next stage especially if people already know what it looks like.

Re: Study: Social media probably can't be fixed

#154

Post by KaiserPro »

pkamb wrote: post #115
KaiserPro wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But here's the thing ... people CHOOSE to engage Kinda, but they also don't really realise that they have much more control over the feed than they expect (in certain areas) For the reel/tiktok/foryou-instagram feeds, it shows you subjects that you engage with. It will a/b other subjects that similar people engage with. Thats all its doing. continual a/b to see if you like what ever flavour of bullshit is popular.…

Maybe the TikTok algorithm is better, but the "I don't like this" action on Meta properties just blatantly does not work. I still get the same type of clickbait content no matter how many times I try to get rid of it. Maybe watching other types of Reels would do it, but no thanks.

on facebook, yes, for many stupid reasons. It doesn't have a "I don't like this" function on most stuff. and there are no controls for stopping "non friend" content injection in the feed.

In instagram, its very different.

First there is "snooze suggested content" which gives you a pure follow feed.

However once you reach the end of that and go into the "for you" feed, which has one "personality". Then there is the explore page, which has another "personality"

The new reels carousel stuff I think is possibly another personality.

So there are now three places where you need to yeet stuff you don't like.

I noticed that when the reels carousel was introduced they went heavy into thirst traps.

But again, this is a regulation issue. If this was the 1980s, there would be a moral panic causing something like the v-chip to stop "the youth" getting access to soft porn (not that it worked that well) Now it'll be a executive fatwa, which'll be reversed when he gets distracted by something else.

Re: Study: Social media probably can't be fixed

#155

Post by epgui »

smackeyacky wrote: post #93
nradov wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's junk science and doesn't refute the specific point I made. Facebook users are far more likely to post original content than X users. It might just be some blurry backlit vacation photos but it is original content.

They post but it doesn’t get read, all their friends feeds are just swamped with crap like theirs is.

But then we’re back to blaming the algorithm.

Re: Study: Social media probably can't be fixed

#156

Post by greenchair »

squigz wrote: post #103
incompatible wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Diverse discussion" is just something I don't want. Of course I've made up my mind about all kinds of things and I don't really need to see opposing points of view as though they are novel thoughts that I've never considered before. Sure, tell me again why your religion or your conspiracy theory proves that the scientific consensus is a hoax. Maybe you'll convince me this time? I don't mind Mastodon, but I'm pretty…

> I don't really need to see opposing points of view as though they are novel thoughts that I've never considered before I mean, that's fine, if you think that you can consider all conceivable angles thoroughly, by yourself. I for one welcome opposing views, but I suppose if my idea of that meant "religion or conspiracy theories" I'd probably be avoiding it too.

no need to consider all angles about an issue. not possible anyway. think about how much time you've wasted on HN reading opposing views that add no value.

Re: Study: Social media probably can't be fixed

#157

Post by squigz »

greenchair wrote: post #156
squigz wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't really need to see opposing points of view as though they are novel thoughts that I've never considered before I mean, that's fine, if you think that you can consider all conceivable angles thoroughly, by yourself. I for one welcome opposing views, but I suppose if my idea of that meant "religion or conspiracy theories" I'd probably be avoiding it too.

no need to consider all angles about an issue. not possible anyway. think about how much time you've wasted on HN reading opposing views that add no value.

I will do that, right after I spend some time thinking about how much time I've spent on HN reading opposing views that add immense value and wisdom to my life. :)

Re: Study: Social media probably can't be fixed

#158

Post by squigz »

incompatible wrote: post #108
squigz wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't really need to see opposing points of view as though they are novel thoughts that I've never considered before I mean, that's fine, if you think that you can consider all conceivable angles thoroughly, by yourself. I for one welcome opposing views, but I suppose if my idea of that meant "religion or conspiracy theories" I'd probably be avoiding it too.

I follow people I can learn from, not people who try to convince me that everything I already know is wrong. I don't follow people who post misinformation, reject science, or who think that ad hominem attacks are a valid form of debate. There are a lot of them out there!

Fair enough. I guess I'm very lucky in that regard, as I don't run into that type of person very often

Re: Study: Social media probably can't be fixed

#159

Post by 1718627440 »

magzter wrote: post #97
taeric wrote: post #95

This seems somewhat disproven by the existence of places like this? Strict moderation really does work wonders to prevent some of the worst behaviors. Not that you won't have problems, even here, from time to time. But it is hard to argue that things aren't kept much more civil than in other spots? And, in general, avoiding direct capital incentives to drive any questionable behavior seems a pretty safe route? I woul…

I generally agree that strict moderation is the key but there's obviously a certain threshold of users and activity that is hit where this becomes unfeasible - ycombinator user activity is next to nothing compared to sites like Facebook/twitter/reddit. Even on Reddit, you see smaller subreddits able to achieve this. But just like a public park, if 2 million people rock up it's going to be next to impossible to police…

> there's obviously a certain threshold of users and activity that is hit where this becomes unfeasible

Not really. If 5 people can moderate 1000, surely 5000 can moderate 1 million. Divide et impera, it's not a new idea.

Just keep in mind that in a free market there is supposed to be no profit. If there is, then something is wrong. In this case the companies just don't feel like moderating and following laws.

Re: Study: Social media probably can't be fixed

#160

Post by rsolva »

gyomu wrote: post #113
grishka wrote: post #109

Social media as a concept can definitely be fixed. Just stop doing algorithms, period. Strip the platforms of any and all initiative. Make them dumb pipes. Stop pretending that people want to use social media for entertainment and news and celebrities. Stop trying to turn it into interactive TV. Stop forcing content from outside of my network upon me. Make the chronological feed the only option. Social media is meant…

> Strip the platforms of any and all initiative. Make them dumb pipes. Stop pretending that people want to use social media for entertainment and news and celebrities. Stop trying to turn it into interactive TV. Stop forcing content from outside of my network upon me. Make the chronological feed the only option. Congrats, you now have platforms no one will care about, as attention span gets sniped by competitors who…

I like to think that humanity is starting to build up some amount of immunity and aversion towards algorithmic feeds. Non-tech friends and family in my life (Norway and the Netherlands) express a rapidly growing discomfort being on Google and Meta's platforms, and some have gone cold turkey, others are actively formulating an exit strategy.

I dropped out of these platforms some years ago and have been very happy having the Fediverse (and HN!) as my only social media. It is just the right amount of engagement and impulse for me. I do not check my feeds compulsively, but occasionally – and the people I follow is a diverse bunch, giving me food for thought and keeping me up to date with topics and software projects.

It is still a niche place to hang out, but I'm OK with that. Now and then, friends get curious enough to join and check it out.

Post reply on HN