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

31–40 of 136 posts

Re: Toxicity on Social Media

#31

Post by vintermann »

The "random sample" part of the solution is good. The "trusted polls" part of the solution is not good, because who decides if a poll is trusted? There are certainly a lot of polls I don't trust, because I suspect them of

1. cheating or being lazy with the sampling

2. Being a weasel with the phrasing to get the desired result

3. Being a push poll.

Still, a "trusted" poll is slightly better than a freeform "community note", especially if it sticks solely to how prevalent an opinion is.

Slashdot used random sampling in moderation 30-ish years ago. It worked OK, except that scores were used for very little (crucially they didn't even sort by them), and they had a more gameable non-randomized system to moderate the random system. And of course it was probably vulnerable to Sybil attacks.

(By the way, I guessed 4% for the number of toxic users)

Re: Toxicity on Social Media

#32

Post by tardedmeme »

energy123 wrote: post #14
JimmyBuckets wrote: post #9

This seems like a great idea. Even without the linked surveys. Two questions I have: - how you does this handle the fact that a lot of accounts on social media platforms are bots that maybe controlled by a small number of people. - how do we actually get this implemented?

Regulating the algorithm is my favorite answer. Ban the recommendation engine on large social media sites. Make it a chronological feed of who you follow. Make it boring. I don't know all the details, but something like this.

I want some kind of algorithm though. If some of my friends post a lot and some post a little, I want to see a more even split. And I want to see some posts from friends of friends, and from strangers who are posting similarly to my friends.

Re: Toxicity on Social Media

#33

Post by krapp »

seltzerboys wrote: post #22
krapp wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The current social panic always feels very different. But people literally believe social media is the sole cause of all of modern society's problems, that it's a mind-control platform and a cancer on society. I've seen people say they would welcome a fascist dictatorship if only it meant destroying social media. I've seen people say they want "algorithms" made illegal. It's obvious from the hyperbole around the disc…

if you strip social media down to its essential parts it's clear that it can easily cause huge problems for a society. it's basically a never-ending 24/7 stream of information amplified out to anywhere in the world that is: 1. insanely low-effort to post 2. requires NO discernment, proof, credibility, or peer review to post 3. 'viral' in that opinions circulate because other people have interacted with them, not beca…

If you strip social media down to its essential parts it's simply a multimedia communications and networking paradigm. Nothing ontologically good or evil about it.

You aren't listing problems intrinsic to social media per se, so much as how people choose to use it and how specific platforms choose to operate. The latter of which is a problem when Twitter, Facebook and the like optimize for engagement through controversy, but I think when we focus on social media as a whole we risk throwing the baby out with the bathwater in restricting human rights and the ability of people to network and communicate freely without interference by state interlocutors.

Re: Toxicity on Social Media

#34

Post by __MatrixMan__ »

seltzerboys wrote: post #17

This article is awesome but it doesn't acknowledge that the problem has been maliciously manufactured by social media companies. they do not have incentive to curb the distortion of extremism and therefore any attempt to do so in a grassroots way will likely not be effective. then there's the bot problem but that is probably easier to address if we actually committed to doing so.

Do we need their permission to implement it? Could be a browser extension.

Re: Toxicity on Social Media

#35

Post by vintermann »

63stack wrote: post #11
JimmyBuckets wrote: post #9

This seems like a great idea. Even without the linked surveys. Two questions I have: - how you does this handle the fact that a lot of accounts on social media platforms are bots that maybe controlled by a small number of people. - how do we actually get this implemented?

This is my question as well, especially about the "community check". How will it be ensured that the "community check" is not going to be dominated by bots pushing an agenda? How is that different from "just another comment section hidden behind a green button"?

I guess they think fighting bots is a separate problem. Fair enough, since bots would still be a problem even if they pushed "reasonable" takes.

Re: Toxicity on Social Media

#36

Post by mrmarket »

__MatrixMan__ wrote: post #34
seltzerboys wrote: post #17

This article is awesome but it doesn't acknowledge that the problem has been maliciously manufactured by social media companies. they do not have incentive to curb the distortion of extremism and therefore any attempt to do so in a grassroots way will likely not be effective. then there's the bot problem but that is probably easier to address if we actually committed to doing so.

Do we need their permission to implement it? Could be a browser extension.

true. but that's on the individual vs. the platform so it won't be perfect adoption. better than nothing tho.

Re: Toxicity on Social Media

#37

Post by finghin »

vintermann wrote: post #31

The "random sample" part of the solution is good. The "trusted polls" part of the solution is not good, because who decides if a poll is trusted? There are certainly a lot of polls I don't trust, because I suspect them of 1. cheating or being lazy with the sampling 2. Being a weasel with the phrasing to get the desired result 3. Being a push poll. Still, a "trusted" poll is slightly better than a freeform "community…

Can’t be overstated that it takes great effort to make a poll trustable, in any meaningful context

Re: Toxicity on Social Media

#38

Post by vintermann »

BoredPositron wrote: post #16
krapp wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The current social panic always feels very different. But people literally believe social media is the sole cause of all of modern society's problems, that it's a mind-control platform and a cancer on society. I've seen people say they would welcome a fascist dictatorship if only it meant destroying social media. I've seen people say they want "algorithms" made illegal. It's obvious from the hyperbole around the disc…

You: Other people are unhinged hyperbolists. Here, let me characterize them hyperbolically to prove it, therefore I am the calm rational one and by the way, civilization may collapse and the CIA might be behind this. I mean wtf. Is this your parody account?

If thinking CIA manipulates social media and the world is currently in deep trouble is extremism, count me in the 3.1% already, buddy.

Re: Toxicity on Social Media

#39

Post by mrmarket »

krapp wrote: post #33
seltzerboys wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

if you strip social media down to its essential parts it's clear that it can easily cause huge problems for a society. it's basically a never-ending 24/7 stream of information amplified out to anywhere in the world that is: 1. insanely low-effort to post 2. requires NO discernment, proof, credibility, or peer review to post 3. 'viral' in that opinions circulate because other people have interacted with them, not beca…

If you strip social media down to its essential parts it's simply a multimedia communications and networking paradigm. Nothing ontologically good or evil about it. You aren't listing problems intrinsic to social media per se, so much as how people choose to use it and how specific platforms choose to operate. The latter of which is a problem when Twitter, Facebook and the like optimize for engagement through controve…

well yeah. like hacker news is a social platform with checks and balances in place to prevent mass hysteria and ragebaiting. but if we're honest about the biggest social media platforms of the day, each of the things listed are features of them. and because these tools are actually incentivized against fixing each of the problems listed, they will not fix them. so they're functionally essential parts of the social media platforms that are actually shaping public opinion.

Re: Toxicity on Social Media

#40

Post by boxed »

Huh. I guessed 13% of Demographic voters as LGBTQ, and the correct answer is 6%. But if you look at wikipedia the numbers globally for gay, lesbian, and bi should be above 6%. That's weird. I would expect Democrats to be slightly above the general numbers...
Post reply on HN