Live data from Hacker News

The effects of algorithms on the public discourse

tekhne.dev

91–97 of 97 posts

Re: The effects of algorithms on the public discourse

#91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is great to hear. Churches are often in the prime real estate areas, it'd be great, if the attendance / donations would fall to zero. And if these places would be redeveloped into open-for-all urban green islands. Rather than exclusive worship clubs.

I am unsure what your comment has to do with mine. But I disagree with your value judgement. Open spaces are great - but men and women who believe in something greater than themselves is what makes the world go round. Looking at fertility rates between religious and atheists, we'll need these churches and temples in the next generations.

That's an interesting argument, about believing in something greater than themselves. But what, if that belief happens to be outdated? This had happened before.

I'm not into demographics planning. But I do have two kids, girls. I certainly want them to have as much autonomy as they could have. A religious argument regarding "fertility rates" that need to be increased is not aligned with that.

I love green spaces. So I simply want to see churches gone, because they compete for the same (very limited) resource. Using the privilege of being grandfathered in.

If they'll move their activity online, it'll not be the case. So I'm happy to see this happening.

Re: The effects of algorithms on the public discourse

#92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am unsure what your comment has to do with mine. But I disagree with your value judgement. Open spaces are great - but men and women who believe in something greater than themselves is what makes the world go round. Looking at fertility rates between religious and atheists, we'll need these churches and temples in the next generations.

That's an interesting argument, about believing in something greater than themselves. But what, if that belief happens to be outdated? This had happened before. I'm not into demographics planning. But I do have two kids, girls. I certainly want them to have as much autonomy as they could have. A religious argument regarding "fertility rates" that need to be increased is not aligned with that. I love green spaces. So…

I really appreciate a chance to discuss this with a fellow dad. A lot of these things quickly touch on what we value and believe, rather than what we can prove.

So for example - even back when I was an atheist (I was born in the USSR) - I had a feeling that life had a purpose, there was a potential to live up to, there was meaning and reason beyond just me. In a way that's a religiously originated belief that happened to "survive" for a while unrooted from religion, but clearly originated from it.

Now that I've come back to religion, one lens on it is that it's simply the necessary context in which meaning and purpose can exist. For example, if as an atheist I encounter another atheist who is a nihilist or hedonist (as proxy for not having anything greater than themselves) I have no logical foundation from which to say there's more to life than that. But as a religious person talking to another religious person, establishing that baseline is trivial - that's not where the effort goes.

For a belief to be "outdated" requires something updated that works better. One obviously true attribute of atheism is that it doesn't enable its adherents to have enough kids - so from a purely Darwinian metric it obviously doesn't work. It's a hard sell to say "here's a better belief, sure it'll drive you into an evolutionary dead end but... uhh yeah it's better"

Congrats on your two girls and while I also want my kids (2 boys and 1 girl) to have maximal autonomy, I have a great role to play in shaping their thinking and values. For example - whether I live in a neighborhood with a lot of families of in a city filled primarily with spinsters, whether I convey my own values around children or not, whether I encourage a social group that is positive about parenthood vs one that sees kids as undesired burdens, these are all things within my control. And my personal belief is that my kids will be happiest and have the greatest meaning in life if they - like me and my wife - love life, and want to pass it on, and to use our children as a way to contribute positively to the future. So yes I want to pass on these values, yes religion helps that, and also - if we don't do that - the future will simply be inherited by the kids of parents who do. It's not about sustaining fertility rate in some mechanistic sense, it's about a dropping rate being a numeric symptom of a problem I don't want my kids to suffer from if I can help it.

I agree with the desire to not move your kids "online" but I don't think green spaces are gonna do that for you, as plenty of kids live near the park but never look up from their phone. I recently realized that a religious lifestyle "forces" more in person interaction, as I alluded to in my original comment here. For example, it's my religious friends that attend services together - physically, that go to each others houses for lifecycle events, that study as a community.

Re: The effects of algorithms on the public discourse

#94
I was blown away when I learned that humanity is mining more coal right now than at any point in history. Even though coal mining is supposed to be superseded by renewables.

The “small web” is (citation needed) bigger and healthier than ever. Yep, big algorithm feed apps are huge. That doesn’t stop the small stuff from being more huge than it was way back, decades ago, when it was the big game in town.

It’s nice to take off the rose colored glasses and look at the present sometimes. The web is awesome - no hacks needed to make your site look amazing; awesome animations or frosted glass effects in one line of CSS; static site generators desperate for you to use their code to write what you care about; blogs with RSS feeds even though RSS is dead.

If you believe these awesome things don’t exist you’ll live in that world - but it does actually exist, so you’ll be very much missing out.

Re: The effects of algorithms on the public discourse

#95
post #37
post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't want any algorithms, AI or human, curating my default feed. I want my feed to be a chronologically-ordered listing of the content creators I choose to follow and like. If I want to explore the algorithm, that should still be possible, but it shouldn't be the default.

You say that, but then you probably won’t like it when it happens. Some creators post way more than others. Low frequency posters tend to get swept away by the current. Some of my favourite YouTube channels post very infrequently (one video every few months) whereas others post every single day. The YouTube algorithm seems to know this and pins the low frequency guys’ new videos right to the top when they come out.

>You say that, but then you probably won’t like it when it happens. Some creators post way more than others.

I'm not saying there shouldn't be a "discover" type of feed. I'm just saying it shouldn't be the forced default

Re: The effects of algorithms on the public discourse

#96
post #95
post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You say that, but then you probably won’t like it when it happens. Some creators post way more than others. Low frequency posters tend to get swept away by the current. Some of my favourite YouTube channels post very infrequently (one video every few months) whereas others post every single day. The YouTube algorithm seems to know this and pins the low frequency guys’ new videos right to the top when they come out.

>You say that, but then you probably won’t like it when it happens. Some creators post way more than others. I'm not saying there shouldn't be a "discover" type of feed. I'm just saying it shouldn't be the forced default

I’m talking about creators I subscribe to. I don’t want the most prolific creators to dominate over the ones who post rarely among my subscriptions. I subscribe to creators to bookmark them and keep an eye on them, not to let them open their floodgates into my feed.

Re: The effects of algorithms on the public discourse

#97
post #85
post #36

We used to use our curiosity to find stuff we liked, which felt more satisfying than any algorithm's statistically-determined aggregation. Today's kids will still do that, in their own way. I'm not convinced there's anything here other than old man and cloud. We did it our way, in our time. I don't think this generation is actually for-reals-this-time the one where technology finally neutered human curiosity and wrec…

I remember figuring out how Google operators worked (back when they still did) and using them to find mp3s, PDFs, and old servers. The younger people I see on social media are mostly all on the plantation but at least some of them have found creative ways to use it for their own purposes (e.g. evading word filters or building their own communities on direct platforms like Discord or WhatsApp). I see this a lot on Red…

With each generation things change, the goalposts get moved. What was cutting edge for us is the default state of the world for them. And things are definitely moving faster than ever before.

But human nature does not move that fast. It's arguable that we are largely the same as pre-tech humans. I guarantee that the biological property of human curiosity did not materially shift between our generation and the next. Every generation expresses the sentiment that some form of technology has ruined today's kids because we had it so much harder, we had to do X, whatever. Our parents were saying the same about us. And every time the kids find a way to innovate. I am so so weary of any claim that somehow this time the cycle has been broken.

Occam's razor says no, that's just how you feel when you get older. We already know this. To me it's the height of hubris and folly to actually believe "well they really broke the mold with us and now we're doomed."

Post reply on HN