> Even without the algorithm, though, I also believe that humans just aren't evolved to have some kinds of discussions asynchronously, remotely behind a screen.... But if we had been discussing it face-to-face, I'm sure we would both have been more respectful of the other person's viewpoint, or at least would have agreed to disagree and move on.
Yes, this. But what I fear is that heavy use of social media is causing our face-to-face interactions to change for the worse as well. People seem to be getting less respectful in face-to-face interactions as social media led the way towards making it easy to dehumanize the other.
I used to think this was only a property of algorithms but I'm not convinced anymore. Any number of link aggregator sites I'm on with no algorithmic surfacing of content, Reddit (at least on the old site), HN, Lobsters, Tildes, etc all have the same effect. Everyone comments on and engages with the rage inducing post. Nuanced, sanguine conversations get maybe an upvote or two but are just a few posters talking. This tracks with my experience on forums back in the '90s where huge hellthreads would spawn and have people arguing for weeks, and every archive of Usenet flamethreads that I've seen.
I don't think the algorithms are helping, but I think this is just a property of socializing in the large. Humans, when socializing in person, have a lot of context. When my friend rants "relationships are terrible they are just adults emotionally manipulating each other" to me, and I have the context of knowing my friend just had a bad breakup, I know the place this is coming from. When someone posts this on Twitter, everyone is up in arms because there's no context. There's other properties of socializing in the large that I suspect leads to the patterns we see in online discourse, but I'm beginning to think that the algorithms are the minor part.
I think you're laser focusing on Twitter because of your experiences on the platform. I only started using Twitter recently as I felt the non-technical content on HN became too one-sided or rage-filled, so I can't offer much observation there, but I've been on non-algorithmic social sites for decades. I've been on HN for over a decade. Heck, you can hop onto Usenet today and see hellthreads still spawning. A Raspberry Pi group I'm in had a (crossposted) hellthread about Apple products.
People respond to rage whether there's algorithms or not. People give others online much less benefit of the doubt than they do in person. I've seen this constant on every non-algorithmic social site I've been on. Mastodon, despite being a much smaller network, also has huge chains of posts spawned by angry toots/posts. At this point I'm convinced that this is just a modality of failure in human discourse. I'm cautiously optimistic that humans will develop norms around socializing in the large, but it took centuries of political instability for the printing press to be normalized, so it may take (turbulent) decades for socializing in the large to be normalized.
No, these algorithms (often) purposefully amplify content that increases the engagement rate or "average time on page" metric.
It's just that toxic content coincidentally often has high values on this metric:
- if you agree with the content, you stay on the page longer to read more of what you love
- if you disagree with the (toxic) content, you perhaps invest a lot of time to post strong counterarguments (increases engagement rate and average time on page)
> In other words, maybe its undermining our current system by actually being more technically democratic.
I think OPs point is valid if the algorithm is really just giving humans more of what they want. In other words, if the engagement metric really is responding to how humans prefer to spend their time, this really is a view into what a more technically democratic society looks like.
Personally, I don't like the idea of that and would prefer the thought that these algorithms really are measuring the wrong thing!
To highlight the point I'm making, assuming the above is true, your stance could be summed up as: "yes, humans prefer this content, but we know better and will make the right decision on their behalf"
To re-enforce a sibling comment, being able to choose your own algorithm is exactly how you tease apart these two takes. Twitter supports this (chronological vs. engagement) - I personally opt for chronological. I'd be interested to see the stats on usage of that!
What makes people engaged and what people want are not the same thing by definition. If you want to state they are, you should say why you think it.
I agree that it's not, but long-term desires are not all that people have.
> many would argue
Maybe, maybe not, but I would disagree.
> that they're not freely choosing to succumb to addiction either.
"freely" is doing the heavy lifting in that sentence. And a discussion about that is philosophical. They're as free to make that decision as they are to make any other.
Those things are literally the result of human and automated research on how to make people read/share content. I wonder what is your definition of "forced".
They aren't forcing you to keep your eyes open and see the content on their sites
Your computer can open another web page. You can get off the seat.
Tired of seeing garbage clickbait articles? Block the sites which post that stuff.
Tired of conspiracy theories and gossipy articles? Block the sites and mute/unfollow those people.
Tired of experiencing the world in 140 character chunks? Get off Twitter.
Personally I try to go out of my way to purchase books directly from the author, publisher, a book store with a local presence, and online retailers in that order.
I’ve mostly cut Barnes and Nobel out of my vendor list for this exact reason, their book shelves are full of products I have no interest in - walking into their store has such a high noise to signal ratio that, unless I place my order in advance for a specific product, I don’t bother walking in anymore. The books of value are buried on shelves drown out by heavily marketed pop culture noise; and that’s if I’m lucky, often I have to have it ordered and shipped to store to pick it up locally. They don’t meet my needs for content discovery so I don’t do business with them very often.
Just because they haven't succeeded does not mean they haven't tried.
I know the actual text of the bill would require a lot of finagling and legalese, but that's the concept of what I want.
"Non algorithmic" means "some human creates the content feed by hand". This is also not free of lots of biases and what news portals in the web did in the past.
There used to be a news app called Pulse that LinkedIn bought and killed. To me, that was the best possible execution of the feed concept. It was essentially RSS with a scrollable feed component. You could browse feeds by category, but it wasn't recommending things based on current interests. If you wanted to go down a right/left wing newshole it was possible, but you had to consciously seek it out and go down it. The app wasn't breadcrumbing you.
if u want an example: tiktok has the for you page (algo discovery) and the following page (just ppl u follow). its the fyp where ppl spend time.
Say you hit a button, and each time you hit it you gain a million dollars. After you hit that button once or twice, you discover that it also causes great harm to other people. If you continue to hit the button, your original intent (when you didn't know it's effects) is no longer relevant to whether or not it you should continue hitting the button, since you would now knowingly be harming people for your own profit. The side-effect is no longer a side-effect. It's just an effect.
To answer your question anyway, perhaps we should consider the well-being of a user and bake that into our algorithms. It might not be as profitable, but there's a reason we regulate companies- having some restrictions on profitability can often be a net benefit to society.
The problem rather is: how are we supposed to algorithmically measure the well-being of a user?
If this is your stance: what algorithm do you propose to separate content that is "toxic" from content that is "non-toxic"?
I saw youtube's new shorts feature and clicked on it out of curiousity. It gave me a couple funny cat videos and some cooking content copied from tik tok... but after that it was just a doomscroll of the guy I'm talking about above, Prager University, etc.
Youtube has like 2 decades of data on what videos I watch, and it's definitely not that shit, but yet it's clear their algorithm is optimizing to put that in front of my eyes.
Who is this? And what platforms? I'm not seeing anything like this on fb/twtr/ig/tt/yt
But if it's know to be just a correlation, it is a defamation to claim that this was done on purpose ("purposefully").
As for toxicity, I don't think there's one magical root cause for all of it. And I'd argue that most features and designs to increase engagement _are_ one of the many causes for people to create lucrative polarizing digital content.
edit: Also I'm not sure how my original post was confusing correlation with causation. You can replace "correlation" with "coincidence" there without issue.
Why toxic (which is subjective) appeals to so many humans is really the question here. The algorythms has no say in that.
"Purposefully" means that the algorithms were developed with the purpose to amplify toxic content. I seriously doubt this is the case. Amplifying toxic content is rather an unintended side effect of the metrics that the algorithms optimize for.
No, my position is that since the developers had neutral intent, it is defamation to claim that these algorithms purposefully amplify toxic content.
It really doesn't matter what the algorithm is meant to do because it's very obvious the material consequences of what it does.
Because people democratically choose to engage with it!
I very much agree with everything else you said.
Evolution does not have an intended purpose.
> I've found myself needing to disconnect from social media because it leads me to having negative feelings about people that I know I like
That sounds a lot like heated face to face interactions. I guess that's why they call it "social" media!
People can take responsibility for their feelings and actions. Or they can find a scapegoat like social media. There's a long human tradition of scapegoating, after all.
I never said it did. What's your point? I'm just emphasizing that humans have clearly evolved to have social constraints in face-to-face interactions that haven't evolved in async, remote interactions (which is unsurprising).
> That sounds a lot like heated face to face interactions
Except it's not, and that's my whole point. Yes, of course people can have heated face-to-face interactions, but it's undeniable that people can be a lot nastier, quick to judge, be belligerent, etc. in remote interactions vs. in-person. And it's not just social media. Louis CK has a great bit about how he can be a total asshole when driving in traffic in a way that would be completely unacceptable/insane if he did it in an elevator, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8062QEFk5g . The same dynamic applies in online interactions.
I don't think it's that hard to differentiate between things people do for enjoyment that they think of as a positive influence, and addictive substances that can fleetingly make people "feel better" but are extremely harmful.
Most addicts may say they enjoy getting high, while even simultaneously talking about how drugs have ruined their lives. The fact that social media companies have hacked the same brain pathways doesn't mean the answer should be "it's fine, they all like it!"
There's no easy answer to "this is toxic, we should ban it." Everyone has a different definition of toxic. Cultures form around different norms. Social media, like HN, spans multiple continents and cultures. I don't think you'll ever be able to get all of the userbase of any of these sites to agree on what is toxic and what is not.
I'm of the opinion that the user should be able to:
1. Audit their algorithmic recommender to see which bin they're bucketed into.
2. Adjust the weights on the recommender
But anything more, any form of broad agreement on toxicity, is asking for humans around the world to land at a single definition of what is good and what is bad.
And the fact is that most Americans are actually on the fence on the abortion issue, although most people are also against a full-on ban against abortion which the media is focusing on. The media has been presenting a very narrow view in the past, and now you are just getting exposed to the full spectrum of viewpoints on the internet.
Reddit I think is the best counterargument against further moderation of social media. The moderation outside the US at least is wholly haphazard and out-of-touch with mainstream views in said localities. For example if a left-wing American were to actually go around asking how Scandinavians themselves viewed their socialist paradise nordic welfare state as being viable, the response would be something that might be against left-wing interests, and they would be banned on Reddit. Similarly the way the media has supported Muslims and the on-the-ground Islamophobia in Europe and Asia are widely apart, and most of these people would be blanket-banned on Reddit as well.
Even without the algorithm, though, I also believe that humans just aren't evolved to have some kinds of discussions asynchronously, remotely behind a screen. I've found myself needing to disconnect from social media because it leads me to having negative feelings about people that I know I like. E.g. after the overturning of Roe v. Wade there were some posts by family members who I know and love, even though I know we don't share the same politics. After seeing their posts the first thought that went through my mind was "WTF is wrong with these people??" But if we had been discussing it face-to-face, I'm sure we would both have been more respectful of the other person's viewpoint, or at least would have agreed to disagree and move on.
Everyone has seen it (and probably done it) - said something extremely hostile in an online forum that we would never say face-to-face.