Nothing gets people going like someone saying something divisive or controversial after all.
So pretty soon most of the feed is divisive bullshit.
We however, do. This is why the human element side of things is my target. Even if the algorithms change, not much will if we don't.
No one is going to approve a ‘say anything as long as it bumps ratings immediately’ algorithm, but almost everyone is going to try to do at least what the top competitor seems to be doing.
Which is algorithmic/ML based engagement optimization, with some kind of ‘but not the most controversial if it’s literally nazis’ type filter for things with too much political blowback (aka calls for insurrection), or legal issues (child porn).
If you look, it’s literally almost everywhere now. And earlier they didn’t even have the ‘not literally nazi’s’ filter.
It doesn’t mean we shouldn’t all agree to not do that, or even try to enforce that people don’t do that.
I get it definitely happens with folks texting friends links or sharing it via email, but the friction with those is higher and it gives time for folks to think more than the feed interface.
It’s highly efficient psychological pressure/engagement and maximizing the focus towards the engaging content that is the real problem IMO. It makes something that someone could think about (potentially) and choose to stop into something they become hyper engaged with constantly and can’t turn off.
Shiri's Scissor: https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/10/30/sort-by-controversial/
Algorithms require input to give you output, right? So even if you are correct that badly created algoritms are to blame, we still have the people who fall for the algorithms outputs because they are feeding it the inputs.
To put it simply, it all goes back to the calculator/computer quote in regard to their users. They are only as smart as the person using them.
So, from that point of view; there are a lot of really dumb users on the internet.
If 99 out of 100 users input not-BS, and 1 user inputs BS, but the algorithm picks the 1 users BS input and feeds it to the other 99 first so they get angry and yell at each other over the 1 BS input together - that is a historically unique situation.
If it does it at scale for cheap, that is also a historically unique situation.
If it does it without a human being directly involved in the choosing and pushing process (and feeling bad potentially!), that is also a historically unique situation.
If someone sees all 100 users posts together, it’s easy to see the BS is BS. If the BS post goes to the top of the feed and is the first thing they see, and the normal posts either don’t show up, or only a few of them show up? That is a completely different experience for the consumer of the media.
They might feel worse about it later because they know they shouldn’t have reacted that way, but in my experience that doesn’t help as much as you’d want.
Doesn’t take much to get a mob going unfortunately.
Anonymity means more honesty, which is far more interesting than an adjusted and boring corporate world full of advertiser messages and the latter is all you would ever get. That said, the loudest voices on Twitter or Facebook are mostly not anonymous, anonymous boards are mostly far better places to discuss anything. Some abuse it, but without it we would see a much worse net.
I tend to agree but it's an oversimplification of the problem. There is a fantastic book about the psychology of radicalization by Robert B Caldini "Influence"[1] that has apart from the more common scenarios like exploiting reciprocity etc the idea about saying things out loud. There are 3 stages, you get people to read it, then you get them to say it then you get them to sign it. Once they say it it will be hard for them not to sign it since it means walking back on their argument and society likes consistency and hates flip-flopping. After you get them to sign, it's now recorded in history like something that can compromise you in future. Even you delete it you have said it before. This is relevant on especially for things that go viral or have a large audience. How does that relate to social media?
Especially on platforms that enforce a real name policy you get shallow thoughts because people are careful (LinkedIn is a good example). But even on things like twitter / reddit people will have followers and a karma that they attach themselves (their ego) to.
We do not communicate by saying things but we immediately jump to the stage of writing it down. Now these are usually not well thought out opinions since they haven't been argued in a group and tested against our peers. We blurt out not opinions but brain-farts that we test against an audience but at this stage they are already written down.
If the message shared is popular you get the likes flooding in where every person is likely not to read this message more than once before liking / sharing. But the effect on the author is different because they end up reading what they wrote several times as a way of congratulating themselves and reliving the moment of gratification. So it's actually a form of self-radicalization on half baked thoughts (than radicalization by others). An important step is missing where the author of a message can verbalize the idea with real people f2f before jumping to "the writing it down" stage. That makes it harder not to double down once critic is expressed by an audience. Add to this tribal culture of in/out groups those who will oppose the message can be drowned out with a click of a button (I'm not arguing for letting trolls take over and abolishing mute/block button, but these don't exit IRL. Anyway I'm only trying to deconstruct the process)
There are very few people on social media humble enough not to drink their own kool-aid. The majority of users are absolutely eaten by the system and spat out again without realizing what happened. the concept of writing it down is so powerful that we have even built a legal / trust system around it where we require people to scribble their name under something they have read to make it binding.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influence:_Science_and_Practic...
These people seem to think that humans aren't at fault for the actions of their creations. They seem to think that algorithms are capable of having agency for their actions... This couldn't be further from the case.
As for the content of your reply however, thanks for being a little more nuanced in it all. Yes, a self contained echo chamber is definitely not going to help things. That said, what you are saying is effectively saying as well "If you proofread your own comments, you are risking radicalizing yourself off your own ideas." But further than that, you are also stating "Those ideas are just half baked".
Well in some people's cases that may be true, but as per the usual problem with most of these arguements; it leaps right past the true actionable agent in the problem and heads straight for blaming X thing that people have little control over. Psychology is one of those things that people have less control over than other people would like to believe. I know this because I have had to literally retrain psychologists over stuff like this during the times they figured they were fixing me. HAH, jokes on them.
(It was always something like "Those people don't control your actions" and I would always reply with "When did the chain of actions and consequences begin in your mind over this subject matter?". To this they would usually start it with 'me', when I would correct them and say "it starts with the person before I, because my actions are based off the consequences of their actions. Therefore while they may not 'Make me' do anything, they certainly do present possible options for me to take, and I tend to take the ones that they like the least; usually due to them being the correct action."
Now, from that little bit of a side story, do you see how your opinion of psychology being the answer might be a bit of problem in its own right? Your assumption basically ignores the fact that there is a chain of consequences for every action taken by every single person connected to said subject matter.
So while the person proofreading their comment might be 'radicalizing themselves' using their own propoganda; you are making the mistake of thinking that just because they have X opinion other than yours, it must be bad. This is a common mistake made by... drum roll please... radicalized people. Especially so in regards to folk who are on the internet far more than they should be? I end that with a question mark because it's mostly an observation so far that I cannot concretely say is for certain the problem and cause to the problem.
And so now we are back to the crux of your point. The half baked idea that gets reiterated over and over again due to be re-read. How half baked is my reply to you? How half baked is your reply to me? Was my original comment even half baked to begin with, or is that just your view of the situation through your own subjective and thus potentially biased viewpoint? Get the point?
The problem is many things DyslexicAtheist. But all of them stem from one single source. Humans. This is why I blame them and not the algorithms or the psychology itself. Why?
Because both are creations of humans. Psychology is just an attempt to understand something we didn't create, so we created a method of understanding it. Faulty as it may be, it has its uses. Algorithms are the same thing in a way. We created the fabric of which they exist, but we still don't understand fully how they operate. Or to put it a better way, we don't fully understand yet how to create them to make them operate exactly how we want. And then furthermore from there, we also do know how to create them well enough to make them do exactly what we want from time to time as well; which has its own problems.
Youtube's algorithm is a good example of the creators only having a partial understanding of how their creation works. (If they are to be believed every time they say "we aren't sure how this works")
Twitters is on the other hand a good example of them making an algorithm to do exactly what they want it to do, and it does it really well. To horrific results.
Both together are my point insofar that algorithms and psychology are only part of the general overall answer. They are not the end all or be all. Humanity is that, in regards to this problem. We are the one factor that if removed, all the problems cease to exist. But we can't exactly go removing ourselves... Well, we can... but that has new problems attached to it.
Meanwhile, the people with the half baked ideas as you put it, are just stating their opinions. You may call them half baked, but who are you to judge others opinions when yours probably aren't that great either to begin with? right?
And that right there is the real source of all the problems. People's ego's.
Once you get over your ego, all of this becomes much easier to understand and accept. But getting a human to do that is fucking hard.
I for one, have no doubt that the removal of the internet from most people's lives would reduce most of these problems to a standstill for the time being due to how exactly right you are about the effect of fast and long reaching communication has.
That doesn't mean that I want to remove the internet completely from everyone's lives though. I just accept that many to most people aren't capable of handling it yet. Not yet.
All these theories that people have on the other hand are them trying to grasp and come to terms with the very fact I just stated. I mean look at them right now. Some of them think algorithms are fully to blame, but this kind of behavior from humans has been around for centuries and beyond now. The only difference through out time is just the speed and distance of which communication occurs.
So, the internet itself is not to blame for anything. The people are, entirely and thoroughly. The internet is for the most part right now, an inanimate object with zero agency or sentient logical thought processes. For now.
And here's the catch... even if it ever gains those things somehow; it will still be the fault of humans if it turns out to be a giant piece of shit; since it is learning from us.
So, Zubiri... still think I don't have a full enough grasp on this yet? Quite contrary, I probably have a larger grasp on the full details of this problem than most people who try to figure it out. But thanks for your input.
They all basically revolve around one truth I think.
The internet doesn't radicalize people. People radicalize people. The internet is just full of people who are already radicalized in their daily life, and they are using the internet to radicalize others. Whether it be for the left, right, or even some weird alt thing.
Penny Arcade even has their own comic strip theory called "G.I.F.T of the Internet".
Theirs is more simplistic though in that it stipulates that the anonymity of the net is the problem insofar that it gives people a fake sense of security to be who they really are on the inside. For better or worse. Usually worse.
I think all of our ideas on the matter basically resonate on the same singular issue. That people were already nuts to begin with. The internet is just making easier to identify which are fucking screwballs and ... the rest.
But then that poses a new problem. Mob mentality even of righteous people is still just as toxic as the mob mentality of fucking idiots.