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

Now what? The collateral damage of a tech backlash

blog.nillium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 31 posts

Re: Now what? The collateral damage of a tech backlash

#21

Post by shripadk »

gumby wrote: post #6
binarymax wrote: post #3

I’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?

It doesn't matter if your feed is filled with mostly animals and math jokes. Facebook/YouTube or any social media provider will still send you one video that is not based on your profile under certain circumstances. Have you ever stumbled upon a video where you have comments like:

1. I don't know how I got here. I was watching some [insert something innocent here]

2. Thanks [service] for recommending me this video after 10 years of it being uploaded

3. Is [service] trying to tell me something? Am I going to die? Why am I being recommended this [horrible/violent/repugnant video]?

4. I am on the wrong side of [service] again.

And many more.

If you have ever come across such comments on any videos you watch it just is the algorithm deciding to show you something completely unconnected to the profile it built about you. Why? Because these services don't like creating silos of information where users with affinity to that silo flock to. They can't make money that way because the number of advertisers for that niche may be very less. The algorithm then decides that you need to be shown other niches too. Keeps trying until you see multiple videos in a particular niche. Then it builds a new profile about you with that niche added in. This is the rabbit hole which is so hard to avoid. Once you fall into it, it is not easy to come out of.

Now if your feed is filled with only animals and math jokes that is because you fall into a big enough bucket that these services don't bother showing you anything else. Even if you occassionally click on something political, violent or clickbaity. There are enough advertisers in your bucket for them to make their moolah. You are just lucky... For now. But if popularity for animal videos tanks tomorrow don't be surprised if these services recommend videos titled "Shocking accident caught on tape! You won't believe what happened next". That's how the downward spiral begins!

Re: Now what? The collateral damage of a tech backlash

#22

Post by jojobas »

eucryphia wrote: post #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.

No, not Orwellian at all.

I want to theoretically be able to read anything anybody has to say and judge for myself.

Re: Now what? The collateral damage of a tech backlash

#23

Post by newacct583 »

thatguy0900 wrote: post #16
newacct583 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I was talking about norms, not government action, FWIW. That's exactly what we used to have. There have been nutjob conspiracy theories throughout history, but what we used to have is expert consensus that told it was wrong. Somewhere along the line the experts (largely, but not exclusively, picked by the media) got neutered by the social media bubbles.

Again, there isn't any actual censorship happening. If you're a conservative you can say whatever you want about any conservative policy you want on any platform you want. The only people having trouble right now are the ones who want to talk about violent overthrow of the government.

Re: Now what? The collateral damage of a tech backlash

#24

Post by jarjoura »

binarymax wrote: post #3

I’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.

If it wasn't Twitter, YouTube or Facebook, it would have been something else. MySpace could have very easily turned into the same thing. The 2000s and 2010s were a massive worldwide experiment of what happens when you give easy access to amplify voices to everyone.

Unless there's a wholesale rejection of the internet, I just don't think you'll get your wish. Turns out it's a hard problem trying to stop people who want to make a lot of money manufacturing conspiracies to drive clicks.

Re: Now what? The collateral damage of a tech backlash

#25

Post by jjj123 »

wutbrodo wrote: post #15
rubycon22 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 p…

I think you’re probably right about the intention of the original comment, but that doesn’t change the fact that it puts the responsibility on the user to change their habits to avoid toxic content, instead of on the platform.

These platforms use our conscious actions (what we like, who we follow) and our subconscious actions (how long we linger on particular posts, what kinds of posts keep us on the site longer than others) and produce something that is often toxic. You’re right that if you’re hyper conscious of your own interactions you can curate a peaceful feed, but idle browsing for anyone even slightly political is going to lead you down a rabbit hole.

That’s something the platform can change, and imo is something the platform is responsible for, since they’re the ones who made the ML algorithm that’s amplifying toxic content.

Re: Now what? The collateral damage of a tech backlash

#26

Post by cosmotic »

binarymax wrote: post #3

I’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.

I don't remember facebook from 2012, but right now, in my feed that I carefully curate, there's very little toxicity. It's definitely an echo chamber but I offset with less biased news. If your feed turned toxic without your curating, shame on Facebook but it's definitely not inevitable or unavoidable.

Re: Now what? The collateral damage of a tech backlash

#27

Post by goldforever »

jojobas wrote: post #22
eucryphia wrote: post #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.

No, not Orwellian at all. I want to theoretically be able to read anything anybody has to say and judge for myself.

Exactly! Let us see it and we'll judge it for ourselves.

Re: Now what? The collateral damage of a tech backlash

#28

Post by cudgy »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #20
exabrial wrote: post #2

So 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 fi…

What a horrible job it must be to work as a journalist for many of these news organizations. The pressure to please their editors and stoke their viewer base with a consistent narrative must be immense.

Surely, these journalists (pundits) must know what they are doing though. The question is why would an individual who sought to be a discoverer of truth allow themselves to end up in this situation.

Are they simply desperate to work in the news industry no matter what they have to do/say? Do they not realize that a large portion of the audience (from all political slants) is befuddled by their biased reporting?

True journalism appears relegated to freelancers sprinkled around the internet who unfortunately are not heard by the people that most need to hear them.

Yes, it isn’t going well.

Re: Now what? The collateral damage of a tech backlash

#29

Post by lithos »

RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #8

I 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.

It is in my opinion.

Social Media in its current state is to show people something emotional to drive engagement. And then drives that idea to the logical conclusion of grouping people with others that will feed off of each other, to further those emotions and engagement. Literally designed to drive each user into finding an abusive relationship to addict themselves to.

This also means that those Social Media sites are the sites responsible for sorting the vulnerable into easy to find groups. So that people who would exploit such groups have easy access to finding their victims.

Re: Now what? The collateral damage of a tech backlash

#30

Post by forgotmypw17 »

binarymax wrote: post #3

I’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.

As much as I criticize Facebook's UI and design patterns, the amount of connecting with both people I know and people with common interests I can do there is pretty amazing.

I don't see a lot of toxicity because whenever I see anything toxic, I unfollow the source. :)

Post reply on HN