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

81–90 of 136 posts

Re: Toxicity on Social Media

#81

Post by plewd »

dwa3592 wrote: post #68

I liked the article and I also sympathize with a lot of the concerns around this topic because I am from the group that became silent after a while. Popular social media does not have any appetite for nuance. By design it cannot have that. Community checks are alright but I would rather spend an hour on hacker news trying to understand the nuanced perspective of 40 people than looking at very diluted opinion (4 choic…

I re-realized this about a week ago when the "red button vs blue button" debate started appearing a lot on Reddit and Instagram. It's frustrating when every comment is just a shallow knee-jerk reaction from one side re-iterating their perspective or clowning on the other.

The whole debate could be summarized in a paragraph or two, but the social media environment is unfortunately curated towards diluted opinions (as you said) instead of nuanced ones.

All that to say I'm happy HN is still holding strong in terms of quality as compared to other platforms.

Re: Toxicity on Social Media

#82

Post by johnpaulkiser »

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 think tweaking section 230 in the US would have a similar effect. Make corporations liable for posts that they algorithmically amplify. The "discovery" algorithms would become banal overnight without an outright ban.

Re: Toxicity on Social Media

#83

Post by gruez »

swed420 wrote: post #78
gruez wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Reddit is heavily botted, including by capital interests. Is that why /r/all is consistently anti-capitalism and anti-business?

It's manufactured controlled opposition which is designed to look crazier than unchecked capitalism, and it's succeeding wildly at its mission. See: wsws.org as a longstanding external example

So if reddit is more left than you are, it's "manufactured controlled opposition which is designed to look crazier than unchecked capitalism", and I guess if it's less left than you are, then they're a bunch of DINOs (LINOs?) like Manchin or Sinema?

Re: Toxicity on Social Media

#84

Post by plewd »

moolcool wrote: post #72
dwa3592 wrote: post #68

I liked the article and I also sympathize with a lot of the concerns around this topic because I am from the group that became silent after a while. Popular social media does not have any appetite for nuance. By design it cannot have that. Community checks are alright but I would rather spend an hour on hacker news trying to understand the nuanced perspective of 40 people than looking at very diluted opinion (4 choic…

> Tall in this context are rich and influential people This is a double edged sword. Lots of "thought leaders" on twitter have outed themselves as lacking in both thought, and leadership.

Most of them only got to that position from being loud in the first place, so I'd think you could still put them in the latter category.

Re: Toxicity on Social Media

#85

Post by swed420 »

__MatrixMan__ wrote: post #80
swed420 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do we need their permission to implement it? Could be a browser extension. Instead of bandaid-hack solutions leading to perpetual cat-and-mouse, why not build a citizen-owned platform from the ground up, as detailed here: https://www.noemamag.com/the-last-days-of-social-media/ You would barely even need to advertise for it if it was obviously better than any of the existing corporate slop. It would sell itself, and…

Because I don't think the problem has to do with who owns the platform, but rather its that the platform's design relies on infrastructure that can be owned in the first place. The people who run existing social media didn't start out evil, being in a powerful position made them that way. I'll be rooting for this user owned thing to stay true to its goals, but if it's shaped like the other ones in all ways but its ow…

I believe that threat could be prevented with the suggestions in the article.

> The people who run existing social media didn't start out evil

Um, not all of them:

> On July 6 instant messages by a 19-year Zuck appeared on Twitter, along with a link to a 2010 Business Insider story about an exchange that took place shortly after the Facebook founder launched the social-media phenomenon in his dorm room.

> “Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard just me. I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS,” Zuckerberg’s message says.

> “What? How’d you manage that one?” a friend asks.

> “People just submitted it,” Zuckerberg responds. “I don’t know why they 'trust me.' Dumb fucks.”

Re: Toxicity on Social Media

#86

Post by nickburns »

okr wrote: post #73
dwa3592 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I personally feel Reddit is extremely polarized and toxic. It really depends on the community.

Yeah, have the same sentiment towards Twitter before it has been bought by Mr. Musk. You were always close to being banned. And the American government was colluding. I don't like the tone on X now, but hey, no one silences me, and that is awesome.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_ban

Re: Toxicity on Social Media

#87

Post by dmbche »

gruez wrote: post #77
swed420 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For most of its history, Reddit didn't have an algorithm that promoted stories beyond upvotes and time since posting, that might even still be the case. Reddit is heavily botted, including by capital interests, and has been for a long time. This includes basic up/down vote activity. > I think there is a significant percentage of users that do not initiate extreme content but participate in amplifying it. Yes, it's…

>Reddit is heavily botted, including by capital interests. Is that why /r/all is consistently anti-capitalism and anti-business?

Read The society of spectacle by guy debord

Re: Toxicity on Social Media

#88

Post by AMerrit »

tipsytoad wrote: post #64
doginasuit wrote: post #63

Platform algorithms are a big part of the problem but I think this misses another important part. I don't think it is simple as a passive silent majority being drowned out by a few loud voices. For most of its history, Reddit didn't have an algorithm that promoted stories beyond upvotes and time since posting, that might even still be the case. Despite this, we have still seen a steady trend toward extreme views on t…

As someone who basically only hangs out on HN, what are the trends on Reddit? I thought it would vary by channel

There are still good niche and well moderated subreddits, but the big ones are pretty annoying. Lots of most extreme version of headline/summary to get the clicks. Tonnes of bot comments, especially with the rise of LLM. Repetitive joke responses.

Re: Toxicity on Social Media

#89

Post by swed420 »

gruez wrote: post #83
swed420 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's manufactured controlled opposition which is designed to look crazier than unchecked capitalism, and it's succeeding wildly at its mission. See: wsws.org as a longstanding external example

So if reddit is more left than you are, it's "manufactured controlled opposition which is designed to look crazier than unchecked capitalism", and I guess if it's less left than you are, then they're a bunch of DINOs (LINOs?) like Manchin or Sinema?

It's a bunch of siloed group think offered in a variety of flavors. Definitely not a monolith, though basic liberal types (who virtue signal as being more "left" than they really are) might be the most common user.

Siloed groups are the easiest to monetize to advertisers, and they're also not a threat to a faux democracy.

Re: Toxicity on Social Media

#90

Post by Jeanbu »

Really cool visualization and nice article. However, I noticed that to the question: "What percentage of Democratic supporters do you think are LGBTQ?" it answers %6.

That surprised me quite a bit, since the national average is over 9% according to Gallup, and considering demographics (younger people tend to lean Dem and have a higher LGBTQ rate than the average population) that figure is certainly wrong.

Post reply on HN