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

Experimental evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion thru social networks (2014)

pnas.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 66 posts

Re: Experimental evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion thru social networks (2014)

#51

Post by raxxorrax »

acd wrote: post #49

I think AI recommendations algorithms are too unregulated. Say a person is having or had for example a depression. Recommendation algorithms for advertising tech wants customer to stay on site and view content to sell advertising. So potentially recommendations algorithms could recommend videos or content that transfers depressed or other emotional states to viewers as long as it generates ad revenue. Depending on wh…

AI recommendations is something for bored people in my opinion. Sure, you may stumble upon content you would not have considered, but the examples people tend to bring up aren't too convincing.

Some might think that showing depressed people some cute dog pics would lighten them up, but that isn't how it works. On the contrary, the expectations towards themselves to be happy can be counterproductive.

I believe this is the crux of the matter, since social media tends to load people with expectations, depression or not and advertisers try to use this handle to promoted their products.

If a site would try to "transfer positive emotions" I would be seriously concerned. Humans don't even know what content would be best for an individual. How would you train an AI? From resonance of other users? No, that leaves out a lot of context.

But I still don't think AI curators should be regulated, because the quality of regulation would certainly be horrible.

Re: Experimental evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion thru social networks (2014)

#52

Post by hurrdurr2 »

iateanapple wrote: post #47
kerkeslager wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understood that as your point the first time. And I'm saying, if you don't lock down, distancing doesn't happen. It's more complex than just that, but that's the gist.

> And I'm saying, if you don't lock down, distancing doesn't happen. First - our lockdowns were mostly unenforced (except against businesses). Bars were closed but house parties raged. Second - Sweden didn’t do lockdowns and yet people did practice social distancing.

I guess Americans aren't as responsible as Swedes.

Re: Experimental evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion thru social networks (2014)

#53

Post by py_samos »

Recommendation algorithms have dramatic effects on a user's emotions, beliefs, vocabulary, and choices.

This applies not only to social networks but also to search engines, content recommendation, and other applications built on metrics like "relevance" and "engagement".

Re: Experimental evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion thru social networks (2014)

#55

Post by KineticLensman »

titzer wrote: post #24
clairity wrote: post #17

> "It's just that the faster mirroring, feedback and propagation of digits over atoms are generating waves rather than ripples. Beware of tsunamis." that's how the hysteria concerning corona has crashed all over our economy and social infrastructure. as in, lockdowns won't stop the virus and they're immaterially better than distancing (with masks for when you can't), but the economic and social costs (including the p…

> as in, lockdowns won't stop the virus I wish we could be done with this absolutely false misinformation. Case in point, New Zealand is COVID free.

> Case in point, New Zealand is COVID free

Unlike many countries, they can easily close their borders, many people live in isolated communities and they aren't a major transport hub.

Re: Experimental evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion thru social networks (2014)

#56

Post by LatteLazy »

There's a much wider discussion (educational process?) we need to have as a society. The idea that your or my opinions are our own, that we came to them independently or that they're based on facts and logic is basically disproven at this point.

But people insist on pretending they are and mistakenly believe that facts change minds.

This is leading to disastrous public policy and significant damage to people's mental health. These are the issues (directly or indirectly) of our time. Solving them is the big challenge on the 2000s...

Re: Experimental evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion thru social networks (2014)

#57

Post by satokema_work »

raxxorrax wrote: post #51
acd wrote: post #49

I think AI recommendations algorithms are too unregulated. Say a person is having or had for example a depression. Recommendation algorithms for advertising tech wants customer to stay on site and view content to sell advertising. So potentially recommendations algorithms could recommend videos or content that transfers depressed or other emotional states to viewers as long as it generates ad revenue. Depending on wh…

AI recommendations is something for bored people in my opinion. Sure, you may stumble upon content you would not have considered, but the examples people tend to bring up aren't too convincing. Some might think that showing depressed people some cute dog pics would lighten them up, but that isn't how it works. On the contrary, the expectations towards themselves to be happy can be counterproductive. I believe this is…

In some places though (see: algorithmic views of the primary content e.e. facebook or twitter, youtube recs), the recommendations can't be disabled.

You cannot avoid the machine entirely, and all it might take is showing a thumbnail or a preview of something to you.

This sort of thing has led me to getting off those services.

Re: Experimental evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion thru social networks (2014)

#58

Post by kerkeslager »

iateanapple wrote: post #47
kerkeslager wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understood that as your point the first time. And I'm saying, if you don't lock down, distancing doesn't happen. It's more complex than just that, but that's the gist.

> And I'm saying, if you don't lock down, distancing doesn't happen. First - our lockdowns were mostly unenforced (except against businesses). Bars were closed but house parties raged. Second - Sweden didn’t do lockdowns and yet people did practice social distancing.

First: I don't think there's much data to make an argument here, but I think we can agree that house parties alone don't create as much social contact as house parties AND restaurants, salons, gyms, nonessential retailers, hotels, etc.

Second: If your goal is to demonstrate that lockdowns aren't appreciably better than social distancing, Sweden is a great example of why you're wrong.

"As time has gone on the numbers don’t seem to have borne out this strategy, as Sweden is seeing more deaths from the virus than it might have otherwise."[1]

"The death rate in Sweden has now risen significantly higher than many other countries in Europe, reaching more than 22 per 100,000 people, according to figures from Johns Hopkins University, controlled for population. By contrast, Denmark has recorded just over seven deaths per 100,000 people, and both Norway and Finland less than four."[2]

Sweden is, in fact, an example where relying on social distancing and masks rather than lockdowns has resulted in more than three times the number of deaths per-capita that were experienced by countries with similar demographics.

[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshuacohen/2020/05/23/swedens-...

[2] https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/28/europe/sweden-coronavirus-loc...

Re: Experimental evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion thru social networks (2014)

#59

Post by MrMan »

LatteLazy wrote: post #56

There's a much wider discussion (educational process?) we need to have as a society. The idea that your or my opinions are our own, that we came to them independently or that they're based on facts and logic is basically disproven at this point. But people insist on pretending they are and mistakenly believe that facts change minds. This is leading to disastrous public policy and significant damage to people's mental…

This blindness afflicts people who self-identify as "rational" the most, in my opinion. They see themselves as strong, independent thinkers who are immune from efforts to manipulate. No one is immune, the same way no human is independent in the way that individualists would hope they are.

Re: Experimental evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion thru social networks (2014)

#60

Post by dr_dshiv »

thaw13579 wrote: post #20
dr_dshiv wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue is that they published it in a journal? Otherwise an ethics board isnt required for running an A/B test

Seems like there are several concerns: the journal, a question of whether the FB usage agreement permitted such a report from being published, and generally whether it is ethical (separate from the review board question). Some more discussion: http://ulan.mede.uic.edu/alansz/2014/07/an-open-letter-to-pn...

The ethical question is whether to do A/B tests privately vs to do A/B tests and publish scientific papers about them.

I would be interested to understand the ethical basis for removing the ability of companies to run A/B tests.

Post reply on HN