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

Nearly a third of social media research has undisclosed ties to industry

science.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 132 posts

Re: Nearly a third of social media research has undisclosed ties to industry

#81

Post by Aurornis »

terminalshort wrote: post #11
Grimblewald wrote: post #7

From history we know that research left unchecked and unrestricted can start leading to some really dark and horrible things. Right now I think it's a problem that social media companies can do research without answering to the same regulatory bodies that regular academics / researchers would. For example, they don't have to answer to independant ethics committees / reviews. They're free to experiement as they like o…

What counts as research? If I make UI changes, I guess it's ok to roll it out to everyone, because that's not an experiment, but if I roll it out to 1%, then that's research? If I own two stores and decide to redecorate one and see if sales increase vs the other store, do I need government approval? Also I would like an example of something a social media company does that you wouldn't be able to get approval to do o…

> What counts as research? If I make UI changes, I guess it's ok to roll it out to everyone, because that's not an experiment, but if I roll it out to 1%, then that's research?

I think this is a good example of how disconnected and abstract the conversations about social media have become. There's a common theme in these HN threads where everything social media companies do is talked about like some evil foreign concept, but if any of us were to do basic A/B testing on a website then that's understandable.

Likewise, the dissonance of calling for heavy regulations on social media sites or restrictions on freedom of speech is ironic given that Hacker News fits the definition of a social media site with an algorithmic feed. There's a deep otherness ascribed to what's called social media and what gets a pass.

It gets really weird in the threads demanding ID verification for social media websites. I occasionally jump into those threads and ask those people if they'd be willing to submit to ID verification to use Hacker News and it turns into mental gymnastics to claim that Hacker News (and any other social platforms they use like Discord or IRC) would be exempt under their ideal laws. Only platforms other people use would be impacted by all of these restrictions and regulations.

Re: Nearly a third of social media research has undisclosed ties to industry

#83

Post by advael »

mikem170 wrote: post #74
terminalshort wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is oversight. Just not oversight of their UI design and algorithm, which is what people are calling for here. Regulation of the feed algorithm would be a massive 1A violation. Not sure what public infrastructure has to do with it. Access to public infrastructure doesn't confer the right to regulate anything beyond how the public infrastructure is used. And in the case of Meta, the internet infrastructure they r…

If algorithm output is protected by the 1st amendment then perhaps Section 230 [0] protections should no longer apply, and they should be liable for what they and their algorithms choose to show people. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230

That seems a hell of a lot better than repealing section 230 altogether. I also agree with the rest of this argument. Either the editorial choices made by an algorithm are a neutral platform or they're protected speech. They certainly aren't just whatever's convenient for a tech company in any given moment

Re: Nearly a third of social media research has undisclosed ties to industry

#84

Post by slg »

dathinab wrote: post #77
slg wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And if we want to go beyond that, we really just have to blame capitalism. What happens when you build a society around the adversarial collection of money? You get a society that by and large prioritizes making money above all else including ethics and morals.

yes but it's more complicated like if you look at original reasoning why capitalism is a good match for democracy you find arguments like voting with money etc. _alongside with what things must not be tolerated in capitalism_ or it will break. And that includes stuff like: - monopolies, (or more generic anything having too much market power and abusing it, doesn't need to be an actual monopoly) - unfair market practi…

>- giving to much ways for money to influence politics

I think what we're learning is that mass (social) media means that this simply isn't preventable in a world with free speech. Even if the US had stricter campaign finance laws in line with other western democracies, there still needs to be some mechanism so that one rich guy (or even a collection of colluding rich guys) can't buy a huge megaphone like Twitter or CBS.

As long as there is no upper limit on wealth accumulation, there is no upper limit on political influence in a capitalistic democracy with free speech. Every other flaw you list is effectively downstream of that because the government is already susceptible to being compromised by wealth.

Re: Nearly a third of social media research has undisclosed ties to industry

#85

Post by skybrian »

slg wrote: post #65
everdrive wrote: post #34

Social media itself is a grand experiment. What happens if you start connecting people from disparate communities, and then prioritize for outrage and emotionalism? In years prior, you would be heavily shaped by the people you lived near. TV and internet broke this down somewhat, but social media really blew the doors off. Now it's the case that almost no one seems to be able to explain all the woes we're facing toda…

>and then prioritize for outrage and emotionalism This isn’t inherent to social networks though. It is a choice by the biggest social media companies to make society worse in order to increase profits. Just give us a chronological feed of the people/topics we proactively choose to follow and much of this harm would go away. Social media and the world were better places before algorithmic feeds took over everything.

It sure seems inherent to me. You get outrage and emotionalism even in small Internet forums. Moderation is necessary to damp it down.

Re: Nearly a third of social media research has undisclosed ties to industry

#86

Post by linguae »

Aurornis wrote: post #79
slg wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>and then prioritize for outrage and emotionalism This isn’t inherent to social networks though. It is a choice by the biggest social media companies to make society worse in order to increase profits. Just give us a chronological feed of the people/topics we proactively choose to follow and much of this harm would go away. Social media and the world were better places before algorithmic feeds took over everything.

> Social media and the world were better places before algorithmic feeds took over everything Some times I feel like I'm the only one who remembers how toxic places like Usenet, IRC, and internet forums were before Facebook. Either that, or people only remember the past of the internet through rose colored glasses. Complain about algorithmic feeds all you want, but internet toxicity was rampant long before modern soc…

I agree that there’s always been toxicity on the Internet, but I also feel it’s harder to avoid toxicity today since the cost of giving up algorithmic social media is greater than the cost of giving up Usenet, chat rooms, and forums.

In particular, I feel it’s much harder to disengage with Facebook than it is to disengage with other forms of social media. Most of my friends and acquaintances are on Facebook. I have thought about leaving Facebook due to the toxic recommendations from its feed, but it will be much harder for me to keep up with life events from my friends and acquaintances, and it would also be harder for me to share my own life events.

With that said, the degradation of Facebook’s feed has encouraged me to think of a long-term solution: replacing Facebook with newsletters sent occasionally with life updates. I could use Flickr for sharing photos. If my friends like my newsletters, I could try to convince them to set up similar newsletters, especially if I made software that made setting up such newsletters easy.

No ads, no algorithmic feeds, just HTML-based email.

Re: Nearly a third of social media research has undisclosed ties to industry

#87

Post by terminalshort »

mikem170 wrote: post #74
terminalshort wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is oversight. Just not oversight of their UI design and algorithm, which is what people are calling for here. Regulation of the feed algorithm would be a massive 1A violation. Not sure what public infrastructure has to do with it. Access to public infrastructure doesn't confer the right to regulate anything beyond how the public infrastructure is used. And in the case of Meta, the internet infrastructure they r…

If algorithm output is protected by the 1st amendment then perhaps Section 230 [0] protections should no longer apply, and they should be liable for what they and their algorithms choose to show people. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230

What has that got to do with anything? Not at all related to the topic of research or algorithmic control. All that does is make companies potentially liable if somebody slanders somebody else on their site.

Re: Nearly a third of social media research has undisclosed ties to industry

#88

Post by eddythompson80 »

Aurornis wrote: post #79
slg wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>and then prioritize for outrage and emotionalism This isn’t inherent to social networks though. It is a choice by the biggest social media companies to make society worse in order to increase profits. Just give us a chronological feed of the people/topics we proactively choose to follow and much of this harm would go away. Social media and the world were better places before algorithmic feeds took over everything.

> Social media and the world were better places before algorithmic feeds took over everything Some times I feel like I'm the only one who remembers how toxic places like Usenet, IRC, and internet forums were before Facebook. Either that, or people only remember the past of the internet through rose colored glasses. Complain about algorithmic feeds all you want, but internet toxicity was rampant long before modern soc…

You’re absolutely right. Shocking, rage bait, sensational content was always there in social media long before algorithmic feeds. As a matter of fact “algorithmic feeds” were in a way always there it’s just that back in the day those “algorithms” were very simple (most watched/read/replies today, this week, this month. Longest, shortest, newest, oldest, etc)

I think the main thing algorithmic feeds did was present the toxicity as the norm, as opposed to it being a choice you make. Like I used to be part of a forum back in the early 2000s. Every few weeks the top most replied thread would be some rage bait, or sensational thread. those threads will keep getting pushed to the top and remain at the top of the forum for a while and grow very quickly as a ton of people keep replying and pushing it to the top. But you could easily see that everyone else is carrying on with their day. You ignore it and move on. You sort by newest or filter it out and you’re good. It was clear that this is a particular heated thread and you can avoid it. Also mods would often move it to a controversial sub forum (or lock it all together if they were heavy handed) So you sort of had to go out of your way to get there and then you would know that you are actively walking into a “controversial section” or “conspiracy” forum etc. It wasn’t viewed as normal. You were a crazy person if you kept linking and talking about that crazy place.

With algorithmic feeds, it’s the norm. You’re not seeking and getting to shady corners of the internet or subscribing to a crazy usenet newsgroup to feed your own interest in rage or follow a conspiracy. You are just going to Facebook or twitter or Reddit or YouTube homepage. Literally the most mainstream biggest companies in the US homepages. Just like every one else.

Re: Nearly a third of social media research has undisclosed ties to industry

#89

Post by latency-guy2 »

asdff wrote: post #54
terminalshort wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stupid question. If you have a better way to make decisions on insurance coverage then state it.

Why is it on me to come up with a new model for healthcare? I can acknowledge shortcomings of the present system without having to come up with solutions for them.

> Pretty predictable what happens when you deny coverage for a treatment someone needs

Other poster demonstrated that you have no idea what "need" is. So you also have no idea what a "shortcoming of the present system" is either, because how the hell would you even know?

Re: Nearly a third of social media research has undisclosed ties to industry

#90

Post by username223 »

fnoef wrote: post #5

Would it be appropriate to use :surprised_pikachu_face:? I meant, I no longer know who to trust. It feels like the only solution is to go live in a forest, and disconnect from everything.

> It feels like the only solution is to go live in a forest, and disconnect from everything.

As much as I approve of living in forests, you don't need to go that far. Tech bros are fond of things being "frictionless," so add some friction. Delete the social media apps from your phone and use their websites instead. Don't bookmark the sites, but make yourself type in the URLs each time you want to visit. If each visit is intentional, instead of something you do automatically when you're bored, you'll have a better experience.

Post reply on HN