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

The “Majority Illusion” in Social Networks (2016)

journals.plos.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 89 posts

Re: The “Majority Illusion” in Social Networks (2016)

#21

Post by unishark »

ThomPete wrote: post #3

I call this anecdotal growth mutation. You see something, you share it, a lot of other people share it. Suddenly the anecdote becomes statistically significant in the heads of everyone.

I see a lot of posts on reddit which basically consist of the formula "My relative keeps doing . They make me so angry." Perhaps with some extra details of being an obvious two-dimensional jerk for good measure.

Always has lots of upvotes. Could be someone trying to affect opinion with fake upvotes, someone trying to fish for easy upvotes, or just organically motivated by the network's desire for anecdotes to rage about.

Re: The “Majority Illusion” in Social Networks (2016)

#22

Post by TheSpiceIsLife »

ve55 wrote: post #19
TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> uncontrollable algorithms What do you mean by this? Do you mean uncontrollable in the sense that we as users don't have much fine-grained control over what we're shown?

I think I'd best say it as two parts, the first part is that the algorithms behind social media content are not known to us as end-users, which seems a bit unfair given that they control the entire world around us. The second is that there is a system at work here that no individual person or company is in control of. If one news agency decides to not publish content that is outrageous, they may simply just be out-co…

Yep, gotcha. Thanks for the comprehensive response.

Re: The “Majority Illusion” in Social Networks (2016)

#23

Post by systemvoltage »

ve55 wrote: post #8

I view this as the primary reason that protests and rioting have been significantly more widespread recently. In order for someone to feel good about protesting and rioting, it helps if people around them are doing it, so that it seems socially acceptable, and so that negative consequences are less likely to occur. Normally you would need to see this physically near you, but now with viral algorithms, all it takes is…

Life 20 years ago was kinda nice. Computers were cool. Sunday news is what you need to read to get global coverage. No social media or friends showing off their best and hiding the worse, neighbors and LAN parties, 9/11 happened and the country got together, I don't know... we didn't have insane Javascript frameworks. Things were much better. Ecommerce wasn't that big, so I actually went to the stores to buy stuff. Malls were cool.

I am pretty sure I am wrong.

Re: The “Majority Illusion” in Social Networks (2016)

#24

Post by blev »

ve55 wrote: post #8

I view this as the primary reason that protests and rioting have been significantly more widespread recently. In order for someone to feel good about protesting and rioting, it helps if people around them are doing it, so that it seems socially acceptable, and so that negative consequences are less likely to occur. Normally you would need to see this physically near you, but now with viral algorithms, all it takes is…

Did you consider that perhaps you may be perceiving the majority illusion in regards to the prevalence of rioting as opposed to the prevalence of peaceful protests?

Re: The “Majority Illusion” in Social Networks (2016)

#25

Post by baddox »

systemvoltage wrote: post #23
ve55 wrote: post #8

I view this as the primary reason that protests and rioting have been significantly more widespread recently. In order for someone to feel good about protesting and rioting, it helps if people around them are doing it, so that it seems socially acceptable, and so that negative consequences are less likely to occur. Normally you would need to see this physically near you, but now with viral algorithms, all it takes is…

Life 20 years ago was kinda nice. Computers were cool. Sunday news is what you need to read to get global coverage. No social media or friends showing off their best and hiding the worse, neighbors and LAN parties, 9/11 happened and the country got together, I don't know... we didn't have insane Javascript frameworks. Things were much better. Ecommerce wasn't that big, so I actually went to the stores to buy stuff. M…

Perhaps you weren’t a member of any groups affected by the issues that have been protested recently and throughout recent history.

Re: The “Majority Illusion” in Social Networks (2016)

#26

Post by baddox »

keenmaster wrote: post #17
ve55 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>there is suffering that would be invisible to the world if it weren't for social media. Definitely, but the algorithms for social media do not help the worst cases of the most suffering become more viral than more infrequent cases of lesser suffering. The issue is that all that matters is virality. Sometimes suffering is viral when it should be, but other times it is not, and when it is not, no one will care, becaus…

I've read enough history to be convinced that democratic-anything is usually better. Social media is a more democratic medium than traditional media. On the whole, that will turn out for the better, especially as we learn how to control the worst aspects of social media. Before Facebook came out, how much did news reporters, even on MSNBC, lead the conversation against systematic social and economic injustice towards…

During the rise of social media I tended to think the same way, but now I think it’s vital to be able to distinguish between “democratic” and “accessible.”

Re: The “Majority Illusion” in Social Networks (2016)

#27

Post by crazygringo »

nostromo wrote: post #6

This is a timely article. If I only viewed the world through my Facebook feed right now, I'd believe that everyone in the US wants to defund every police department. In reality it's an incredibly unpopular view among everyone, left, right, and center. https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/20... I think making this worse is that even a mild concern about this policy would be received very poorly on…

Survey questions can be incredibly misleading. There's a huge difference between do you support "cut funding for police departments" (with no broader context, so sounds scary -- all risk and no benefit) vs. "move excess police funding to social services which reduce crime" or even just "remove funding for militarized vehicles and equipment in police departments".

Intelligent policy decisions very, very, very rarely can be reduced to just five words. In fact, it's a well-known phenomenon that as survey questions become more nuanced and in-depth, the percentages of "extreme" views decrease dramatically, and most Americans turn out to hold largely centrist, reasonable views, totally different from what the media portrays.

It's the simplistic survey questions that force binary extreme answers without context or compromise that get all the press.

Re: The “Majority Illusion” in Social Networks (2016)

#28

Post by systemvoltage »

baddox wrote: post #25
systemvoltage wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Life 20 years ago was kinda nice. Computers were cool. Sunday news is what you need to read to get global coverage. No social media or friends showing off their best and hiding the worse, neighbors and LAN parties, 9/11 happened and the country got together, I don't know... we didn't have insane Javascript frameworks. Things were much better. Ecommerce wasn't that big, so I actually went to the stores to buy stuff. M…

Perhaps you weren’t a member of any groups affected by the issues that have been protested recently and throughout recent history.

Definitely, I feel like my life just has been in this cacoon lacking externalities and realities of struggles many others experience. I express my empathy towards them and protest for a just, fair and accountable system of law enforcement.

Re: The “Majority Illusion” in Social Networks (2016)

#29

Post by jariel »

keenmaster wrote: post #17
ve55 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>there is suffering that would be invisible to the world if it weren't for social media. Definitely, but the algorithms for social media do not help the worst cases of the most suffering become more viral than more infrequent cases of lesser suffering. The issue is that all that matters is virality. Sometimes suffering is viral when it should be, but other times it is not, and when it is not, no one will care, becaus…

I've read enough history to be convinced that democratic-anything is usually better. Social media is a more democratic medium than traditional media. On the whole, that will turn out for the better, especially as we learn how to control the worst aspects of social media. Before Facebook came out, how much did news reporters, even on MSNBC, lead the conversation against systematic social and economic injustice towards…

The term 'democratic' has fundamentally different connotations in politics, and in media.

'Social Media' is not 'more democratic' it's just a free-for-all where small voices have massively disproportionate power, and there are no controls or integrity - it's just crude, unbridled, bloody populism. A more democratic 'social media' would weigh every plebe's opinion equally.

The 'Free Press' is a self-regulating institution, like a 5th estate, much like the Central Bank, you don't get a 'vote' to determine what interest rates will be, but there is an open system in place for that to happen. You can 'vote' by buying papers and whatnot, but there are other systematic controls.

Social Media is not something we have figured out how to properly use just yet.

Re: The “Majority Illusion” in Social Networks (2016)

#30

Post by [deleted] »

systemvoltage wrote: post #23
ve55 wrote: post #8

I view this as the primary reason that protests and rioting have been significantly more widespread recently. In order for someone to feel good about protesting and rioting, it helps if people around them are doing it, so that it seems socially acceptable, and so that negative consequences are less likely to occur. Normally you would need to see this physically near you, but now with viral algorithms, all it takes is…

Life 20 years ago was kinda nice. Computers were cool. Sunday news is what you need to read to get global coverage. No social media or friends showing off their best and hiding the worse, neighbors and LAN parties, 9/11 happened and the country got together, I don't know... we didn't have insane Javascript frameworks. Things were much better. Ecommerce wasn't that big, so I actually went to the stores to buy stuff. M…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN