Facebook and Twitter algorithms incentivize 'people to get enraged'(yahoo.com)
yahoo.com
Facebook and Twitter algorithms incentivize 'people to get enraged'
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/facebook-and-twitter-algorithms-incentivize-people-to-get-enraged-walter-isaacson-145710378.html
179 comments
We should still call it yellow journalism. The fact that reporters at large media companies will search for outrage on Facebook and Twitter in order to get more hits is a failure of modern journalism. Reporters basing so much of their time on social media skews their objectivity just as much as it would anyone else. It's basically become a feedback loop of anger and it's not contained to twitter and facebook any longer.
Social media is entertainment. News is entertainment.
If you want to get informed, read a book written by an expert or someone with real life experience.
If you want to get informed, read a book written by an expert or someone with real life experience.
> News is entertainment
Maybe that is the case today but I don't really see people around here as the types to let status quos be.
Maybe that is the case today but I don't really see people around here as the types to let status quos be.
Except this “entertainment” is enraging people and causing them to attack the capitol, among other things. It’s much more dangerous than typical entertainment.
> News is entertainment
I'd say it strongly depends on what sites you visit.
Boulevard-, sports- and celebrity-news etc. definitely are entertainment. But journals which uncover wrong-doings, research difficult topics, write long articles?
I'd say it strongly depends on what sites you visit.
Boulevard-, sports- and celebrity-news etc. definitely are entertainment. But journals which uncover wrong-doings, research difficult topics, write long articles?
If it's written by a journalist, I consider it entertainment. If it's a written interview, I consider it entertainment (it's never written as it was told, ask anyone with experience).
When it's really straight out of the mouth or pen of an expert in the field, then yes, it's information.
When it's really straight out of the mouth or pen of an expert in the field, then yes, it's information.
I would also include Reddit in this list. The homepage (if you visit incognito or not being signed in) seems to be tailored to bubble up all the "outrageous" events.
I kind of disagree, Reddit has its own problems (nation states run by warlords) but the downvote button and anonymity solves some of the “outrage for likes” stuff that plagues Twitter and Facebook. I haven’t seen the frontpage you’re talking about in years and I doubt many users do.
I really don’t know why FB and Twitter don’t add an anonymous “dislike” feature. Maybe they tried it and it caused other problems, who knows. More likely though they see that outrage increases engagement even if the toxic environment chases people away eventually.
I really don’t know why FB and Twitter don’t add an anonymous “dislike” feature. Maybe they tried it and it caused other problems, who knows. More likely though they see that outrage increases engagement even if the toxic environment chases people away eventually.
Reddit is the only social media that falls so low as to regularly display lynchings and beatings on the front page. "JusticeServed", and other cheap justifications for violence. Reddit and Twitter the biggest dumps of the internet.
> I haven’t seen the frontpage you’re talking about in years and I doubt many users do.
It's the default page for anyone who isn't logged in (most likely a majority of users, or at least a large fraction). And I'd be willing to bet at least half of logged in users only have the default subs.
It's the default page for anyone who isn't logged in (most likely a majority of users, or at least a large fraction). And I'd be willing to bet at least half of logged in users only have the default subs.
"dislike" buttons can be extremely powerful tools for enforcing groupthink.
I think you downplay how much this affects reddit. Hot-topic issues shift from 55/45 popularity splits (where the minority view is present, but usually overshadowed) to 10/0 when you net out up and downvotes. It gives a sense of single-mindedness in a community where the majority view in truth only barely edges out the others.
I think you downplay how much this affects reddit. Hot-topic issues shift from 55/45 popularity splits (where the minority view is present, but usually overshadowed) to 10/0 when you net out up and downvotes. It gives a sense of single-mindedness in a community where the majority view in truth only barely edges out the others.
I think forums should let users moderate things for themselves by doing the following:
- If I dislike something, don't show me that user/subject anymore unless I choose to explore outside my bubble.
- Instead of showing me how the whole world feels about something, show me how MY group (people I've upvoted) feel about it...unless I choose to explore outside my bubble. At the very least - sort comments based on how much I will agree with them.
- Maybe extend it a few levels deep: If I liked someones comment, maybe content which that user liked is also weighted higher for me.
Essentially - just make these things work for me and not some ambiguous majority of the moment. I wish HN would do this too. I really don't care how many anonymous people liked something because they're still wrong IMO. The system is not working for me.
In the real world we've solved all these problems by not forcing everybody to listen to the whole entire world's opinions all the time. In real life, if I'm homophobic/racist/etc, I hang out with my homophobic/racist/etc friends and nobody else sees me because they're busy hanging out with their own kind.
The world is full of bubbles. I don't see why we need the Internet needs to always be the polar opposite of how real life relationships work.
Of course there should still be ways to explore outside your bubble. However, there's probably no easy money with my ideas. All the user engagement addiction comes from outraging people.
- If I dislike something, don't show me that user/subject anymore unless I choose to explore outside my bubble.
- Instead of showing me how the whole world feels about something, show me how MY group (people I've upvoted) feel about it...unless I choose to explore outside my bubble. At the very least - sort comments based on how much I will agree with them.
- Maybe extend it a few levels deep: If I liked someones comment, maybe content which that user liked is also weighted higher for me.
Essentially - just make these things work for me and not some ambiguous majority of the moment. I wish HN would do this too. I really don't care how many anonymous people liked something because they're still wrong IMO. The system is not working for me.
In the real world we've solved all these problems by not forcing everybody to listen to the whole entire world's opinions all the time. In real life, if I'm homophobic/racist/etc, I hang out with my homophobic/racist/etc friends and nobody else sees me because they're busy hanging out with their own kind.
The world is full of bubbles. I don't see why we need the Internet needs to always be the polar opposite of how real life relationships work.
Of course there should still be ways to explore outside your bubble. However, there's probably no easy money with my ideas. All the user engagement addiction comes from outraging people.
> if I'm homophobic/racist/etc, I hang out with my homophobic/racist/etc friends
Well, maybe, just maybe, we should expose these people to non-homophobic and interracial content to "brainwash" them into thinking that black or gay people might not be as bad as they think :D
Well, maybe, just maybe, we should expose these people to non-homophobic and interracial content to "brainwash" them into thinking that black or gay people might not be as bad as they think :D
Isn't that what's happening on Twitter, FB and Reddit?
I don't think it's working...
I don't think it's working...
They can, but I always thought that had more to do with the “warlords” chasing away everyone with a different point of view.
I think the test case is probably r/libertarian where the mods are extremely hands-off, you’ll still get the downvote hammer and it’s sometimes infuriating but it’s nothing like saying something unpopular in r/politics, which isn’t even one of the worst ones.
I think the test case is probably r/libertarian where the mods are extremely hands-off, you’ll still get the downvote hammer and it’s sometimes infuriating but it’s nothing like saying something unpopular in r/politics, which isn’t even one of the worst ones.
This might be true on more civilized "niche" communities, but the split on the default front page is roughly 50/40/10% ragebait/meme/substantive content, and I use the word "substantive" very generously.
It baffles me how reddit tends to evade the press coverage and discussions for as large and influential it is.
A reasonable explanation might be that the ppl who write these articles don't use it lol, as well as the people in congress who write regulations they report on.
They use Twitter and their parents use Facebook. Any article I've seen on reddit treats it as closer to 4chan than Twitter.
They use Twitter and their parents use Facebook. Any article I've seen on reddit treats it as closer to 4chan than Twitter.
Journalists are invisible on Reddit so why would they care about it?
Must be the same people who think TikTok is just a dance app.
Possibly because reddit's owned by Advance Publications...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advance_Publications
A company that owns a fair amount of media outlets.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Advance_subsidiaries
Why would they report anything bad about themselves?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advance_Publications
A company that owns a fair amount of media outlets.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Advance_subsidiaries
Why would they report anything bad about themselves?
Media company XYZ that isn't affiliated with Advance Publications has no added incentive to report favorably on Reddit. Limiting Reddit would still be to their benefit in the same way that limiting FB or Twitter would be.
Except...Advance Publications is associated with Hearst
https://www.hearst.com/-/the-hearst-corporation-and-conde-na...
One of the board members of the associated press is from hearst
https://www.bloomberg.com/profile/company/125749Z:US
The associated press is a gigantic media organization that dominates just about all global media.
Most media are ran and controlled by the same people at the very top who have interests in a staggering amount of the media consumed around the world.
And essentially, reddit became the media's answer to facebook et al. after it was purchased by them.
https://www.hearst.com/-/the-hearst-corporation-and-conde-na...
One of the board members of the associated press is from hearst
https://www.bloomberg.com/profile/company/125749Z:US
The associated press is a gigantic media organization that dominates just about all global media.
Most media are ran and controlled by the same people at the very top who have interests in a staggering amount of the media consumed around the world.
And essentially, reddit became the media's answer to facebook et al. after it was purchased by them.
Reminds me how some forums aren't allowed to have apps in the App Store due to porn, as well as the Tumblr porn controversy. Reddit has more porn and NSFW content than almost anywhere else.
Same with Twitter. But I'm sure there's some contrived reason Apple can come up with for why Reddit and Twitter are allowed but not Tumblr (pre-gimping) and 4chan.
Not in the apps though! Can’t get porn on any Reddit app, gotta use the browser. So I’m told.
You can, you just need to enable it in settings through web interface
Reddit is owned by Advanced Publications, a media company.
Facebook and Google are sucking all the profits from old media - Reddit is their hedge against that. Of course they don't complain.
Facebook and Google are sucking all the profits from old media - Reddit is their hedge against that. Of course they don't complain.
New money v.s. old money.
R/The_Donald got a ton of press coverage and discussion to the point where it was shut down, whereas the left leaning ragebait subs do not. Why is this do you think? Why do you think facebook gets so much press attention?
Progressive redditors hated r/The_Donald but they recognized that it's methods work and they adopted the same tactics and created a few dozen subreddits using the same playbook. Ironically, the AOC-people are championing The_Donald's tactics better than anyone else and the Admin's don't feel like stopping them.
Well, you know. One subreddit spreads hate against non-white, non-straight, non-american people, the other subreddit spreads hate against fashists and billionaires, and people with power who discriminate others in general.
That being said, it really annoyed me how many AOC posts I saw on Reddit. I kinda like her, but I'm not from the US, so ultimately I don't care that much. It felt like Reddit was just a place to post every AOC tweet in existence.
Of course we can argue that hate is always bad, but this would turn into the ancient argument about what (physical) targets the right has, vs. the left. One group punches down, the other group tends to punch up.
That being said, it really annoyed me how many AOC posts I saw on Reddit. I kinda like her, but I'm not from the US, so ultimately I don't care that much. It felt like Reddit was just a place to post every AOC tweet in existence.
Of course we can argue that hate is always bad, but this would turn into the ancient argument about what (physical) targets the right has, vs. the left. One group punches down, the other group tends to punch up.
Because one group has the time to go onto the other's forums and scan for anything incendiary and forward it to the press.
And only one group of people says that they're being literally killed by words.
Also, most news channels do zero (literally) fact checking and often explicitly lie. Through 2020 I've seen so many talking heads directly contradict the videos coming out of events. Videos they could easily find and watch on Youtube if they cared.
And only one group of people says that they're being literally killed by words.
Also, most news channels do zero (literally) fact checking and often explicitly lie. Through 2020 I've seen so many talking heads directly contradict the videos coming out of events. Videos they could easily find and watch on Youtube if they cared.
This is simply not true. They banned at least a dozen leftist subreddits at the same time.
If the Tankies (who are the closest equivalent) ever get enough power to actually make a ruckus to the degree that the far-right did, the ban hammer will fall on them, too.
It already did. Reddit banned virtually every "far" leftist sub when they banned the_donald. Stupidpol is probably the closest thing left and I guarantee you that will be banned within the year too
It could also be due to how awful the new user experience is on Reddit. A journalist would be instantly turned off to using it as a source.
If you haven't seen it in a while, using a new browser or incognito mode, view reddit without logging in. It is an absolutely awful experience. The content you see as a new user is basically all memes and you are blasted with trending content on top of the card based feed.
If you haven't seen it in a while, using a new browser or incognito mode, view reddit without logging in. It is an absolutely awful experience. The content you see as a new user is basically all memes and you are blasted with trending content on top of the card based feed.
Reddit doesn't make any money. Nobody wants to advertise to that user base, hence the endless redesigns.
On Reddit:
1. Many posts & comments are still longer than 3 half-lines, which is the upper limit of what a journalist can read (journalists like the 'journalists' who spend their time looking for something juicy on Twitter/FB).
2. Famous, bankable, known people are less identifiable.
1. Many posts & comments are still longer than 3 half-lines, which is the upper limit of what a journalist can read (journalists like the 'journalists' who spend their time looking for something juicy on Twitter/FB).
2. Famous, bankable, known people are less identifiable.
It's absurd. I blocked all the outrage/whining filled subreddits in RES and now if I visit r/all/top for a month only 9 out of the first 250 posts are visible, everything else falls under that outrage/whining filter.
I find the behavior of moderators on Reddit far more enraging than any content that gets boiled up. It's like the mods of /r/politics and other similar default subs are there to cause political friction and rage by being openly and aggressively partisan to a very particular slice of the political spectrum. I say this as someone well to the left of the zeitgeist on those subs, but you'll of course hear the same thing from people to the right of them.
Don't forget about the dozens of powermods who enable other subreddits to transform into political echo chambers. A great example is r/InsanePeopleFacebook turning into a showcase of Donald Trump and Tomi Lahren tweets.
Politicalhumor posts seem to contain zero humor at least half the time. It's just anti Trump screenshots.
I wouldn't be surprised at all if mods of popular subreddit were actually paid for doing this, looking at r/all or r/popular always feels like an astroturfing operation.
It's quite common. Moderation is a bit of a thankless job so help is always welcome and in a power-grab honesty and hard-work become negatives, trumped by the ability to lie shamelessly and ceaselessly.
Many women's subreddits, especially if they're for lesbians, are entirely moderated by men. The ones that weren't were slandered off of Reddit.
Many women's subreddits, especially if they're for lesbians, are entirely moderated by men. The ones that weren't were slandered off of Reddit.
Try /r/stupidpol, that's good for political discussion from all sides - though it's a Marxist sub, it welcomes discussion and debate from other points of view.
There are a lot of good subs out there, but the default and high traffic subs have mods with dubious motivations.
The same aggravation and agitation happens in regional subreddits as well. r/Texas has been transformed into a hatefest against Ted Cruz and Republicans after the recent snowstorm. You'll find wild hyperbole about the Texas GOP killing people, Facebook quality memes about how terrible the state is, and incessant cheerleading for AOC and out of state progressives.
There's a difference between an algorithm maximizing engagement even if it means pushing you to read outrage articles and folks on a subreddit saying negative things about politicians you like.
I'm not defending Texan politicians but I am giving an example of how enraging submissions can co-opt and dominate a subreddit's character.
You can still find non-charged submissions on r/Texas's new feed, but those don't wind up being seen on r/Texas's hot feed when there is so much charged content.
You can still find non-charged submissions on r/Texas's new feed, but those don't wind up being seen on r/Texas's hot feed when there is so much charged content.
Their goal is engagement and outrage seems to feed engagement.
More eyes at all costs has a price. It's not just money.
More eyes at all costs has a price. It's not just money.
That's another argument for curating your own list - my list today seems to be overly full of that weird ML lip-syncing app, which while fully uncanny valley, isn't enraging.
It is, and I encourage everyone to do that, but I don't think it's a systemic solution. After all, Facebook and Twitter offer ways to curate your feed too.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Unlike newspaper front pages and magazine covers? (FWIW I agree that FB/Twitter should take responsibility, but I also think journalists should reflect on their role as well. After all, it's their headlines being ranked...)
Same basic mechanism, but social media is a lot more efficient because (mis-)information travels much faster and reaches more people in shorter time, so you don't get the "cool down effect" of a slower transport medium.
Perfect example is the recent Harry/Megan interview with Oprah where social melt down over it. In the interview Megan said she had not talked to her sister in some 10 years and grew up an "only child" and barely knew her. She also said her sister changed her name when she found out she was engaged to Harry. an off handed insult.
The counter story is getting very little press right now, allowing her blatant lies to be spread without any scrutiny. Inside Edition interviewed her sister and her sister brought proof she was lying:
She said: ‘I don’t know how she can say I don’t know her and she was an only child. We’ve got photographs over a lifespan of us together. So how can she not know me?’ The US broadcaster showed four images of Meghan and Samantha together during the clip. Two were from when the duchess was a baby, another from when she was a small child and the last and most recent from Samantha’s graduation, 13 years ago in 2008.
Samantha also disputed Meghan’s claim that she only changed her surname back to Markle after the royal struck up a romance with Harry in 2016. ‘She changed her last name back to Markle… only when I started dating Harry. So I think that says enough,’ Meghan told Oprah. But Samantha hit back: ‘I was a Markle before she was.. Markle has always been my name.’ Samantha then showed Inside Edition her petition to change her name that was dated back to December 1997 and her college diploma, which says Samantha M. Markle.
This is a fairly non-political, pop culture example, but it highlights the fact lies spread so much faster than the truth, that actually finding the truth is nearly impossible. For me, there are no facts anymore, its all about the narrative now. Whoever controls the narrative, controls the "truth".
The counter story is getting very little press right now, allowing her blatant lies to be spread without any scrutiny. Inside Edition interviewed her sister and her sister brought proof she was lying:
She said: ‘I don’t know how she can say I don’t know her and she was an only child. We’ve got photographs over a lifespan of us together. So how can she not know me?’ The US broadcaster showed four images of Meghan and Samantha together during the clip. Two were from when the duchess was a baby, another from when she was a small child and the last and most recent from Samantha’s graduation, 13 years ago in 2008.
Samantha also disputed Meghan’s claim that she only changed her surname back to Markle after the royal struck up a romance with Harry in 2016. ‘She changed her last name back to Markle… only when I started dating Harry. So I think that says enough,’ Meghan told Oprah. But Samantha hit back: ‘I was a Markle before she was.. Markle has always been my name.’ Samantha then showed Inside Edition her petition to change her name that was dated back to December 1997 and her college diploma, which says Samantha M. Markle.
This is a fairly non-political, pop culture example, but it highlights the fact lies spread so much faster than the truth, that actually finding the truth is nearly impossible. For me, there are no facts anymore, its all about the narrative now. Whoever controls the narrative, controls the "truth".
This is only partially true: in prior media eras, low-quality journalism was notorious for doing what Facebook and Twitter are now.
We only notice it because we've come out of an almost century long period in which the most effective broadcast mechanism was regulated by the FCC. This is an accident of engineering; the only reason why the FCC was even allowed to what is blatant government censorship is because of the scarcity of radio spectrum. This died the moment cable news networks became widespread. The only restriction on what, say, Fox News, CNN, or MSNBC can publish is their carriage agreement with the cable companies, which usually just dictates genre, not content. Social media is that but laundered across millions of users who "choose" what to share and like out of what platform algorithms recommend.
Prior to television, there was radio, which was also regulated under a similar regime. However, newspapers ruled the roost before that, and they had practically no limits on speech save for extremely weak defamation laws. They also were instrumental in spreading a lot of outright bullshit. "Yellow journalism" is an anagram of "clickbait", after all; and the press were perfectly happy to engage in exactly the same tactics we see today... for pretty much the same reasons. Selling lurid descriptions of political foes and foreign threats makes more money than level-headed explanations of the same controversies.
I'm not sure if either scenario could be described as "good". The FCC effectively engaged in a soft censorship regime through the means of spectrum scarcity. This meant that every information passed through [the five filters](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_model) of ownership, advertising, sourcing, flak, and (at the time) anti-Communism. On the other hand, it's clearly obvious that a good subset of any group of political ideologues is either incapable of or uninterested in making level-headed assessments about themselves. Self-critique is heresy in the eyes of someone more extreme than you are, and we live in times where the extremes might be right about at least one thing.
We only notice it because we've come out of an almost century long period in which the most effective broadcast mechanism was regulated by the FCC. This is an accident of engineering; the only reason why the FCC was even allowed to what is blatant government censorship is because of the scarcity of radio spectrum. This died the moment cable news networks became widespread. The only restriction on what, say, Fox News, CNN, or MSNBC can publish is their carriage agreement with the cable companies, which usually just dictates genre, not content. Social media is that but laundered across millions of users who "choose" what to share and like out of what platform algorithms recommend.
Prior to television, there was radio, which was also regulated under a similar regime. However, newspapers ruled the roost before that, and they had practically no limits on speech save for extremely weak defamation laws. They also were instrumental in spreading a lot of outright bullshit. "Yellow journalism" is an anagram of "clickbait", after all; and the press were perfectly happy to engage in exactly the same tactics we see today... for pretty much the same reasons. Selling lurid descriptions of political foes and foreign threats makes more money than level-headed explanations of the same controversies.
I'm not sure if either scenario could be described as "good". The FCC effectively engaged in a soft censorship regime through the means of spectrum scarcity. This meant that every information passed through [the five filters](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_model) of ownership, advertising, sourcing, flak, and (at the time) anti-Communism. On the other hand, it's clearly obvious that a good subset of any group of political ideologues is either incapable of or uninterested in making level-headed assessments about themselves. Self-critique is heresy in the eyes of someone more extreme than you are, and we live in times where the extremes might be right about at least one thing.
Well, "old media" isn't any better, just less efficient. Goebbels would be a big fan of Facebook and Twitter if he lived today, having a "direct wire" into everybody's brain must be a propagandist's wet dream:
https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2008/oct/09/radio.hitler...
https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2008/oct/09/radio.hitler...
That flow goes two directions though. Anyone can leave a comment on FB/Twitter posts. I would think propagandists would still prefer the one way broadcasting of MSM, instead of allowing dissent to be stuck directly to their message.
Anyone? Or any account? Let's not forget all the sock puppets that can amplify sources at first, after which a few million political enthusiasts can take up the mantle.
No, they need the genuine man-on-the-street rage posts for the five-minute hate to really be effective. They need to cut to shots of normal people screaming.
It's worth it to them even if they have to go through and delete all the compelling counter-narratives.
(And in a truly captured society, they'd come and pick them up later for re-education, so you posting would really just be helping them find you.)
It's worth it to them even if they have to go through and delete all the compelling counter-narratives.
(And in a truly captured society, they'd come and pick them up later for re-education, so you posting would really just be helping them find you.)
The enragement alone isn't the concern. Social media can enrage people at a previously unattainable scale and speed, and with less central authority (proxy for trust) than ever before.
Newspapers, magazines, and even TV don't measure up across all these contributing dimensions.
Newspapers, magazines, and even TV don't measure up across all these contributing dimensions.
This is a key insight.
Tabloid Journalism is known to be sensational and easily dismissed as such because of the medium, and that people in our social circles don't often peddle anything more than the latest celebrity/sports gossip.
Social Media has allowed mis/disinformation to become more credible by both the scale of distribution for that content, and the increasing that contents trustworthiness by highlighting engagement from people in our social circles.
Tabloid Journalism is known to be sensational and easily dismissed as such because of the medium, and that people in our social circles don't often peddle anything more than the latest celebrity/sports gossip.
Social Media has allowed mis/disinformation to become more credible by both the scale of distribution for that content, and the increasing that contents trustworthiness by highlighting engagement from people in our social circles.
]I would also add that a journalist is accountable to their reputation and journalistic standards while an algorithm has no reputation to uphold and therefore can run wild under the surface with no accountability.
What if Skynet was a social media algorithm... could be a good basis for the Terminator origin story.
What if Skynet was a social media algorithm... could be a good basis for the Terminator origin story.
Yes they do! There isn’t that much difference nowadays between cable news and edgy YT personalities. Old guard media has realized that they can’t compete with social media so they’re borrowing all the plays.
There is news in the newspaper and in the archives of news sites but what’s front and center is outrage bait opinion pieces from large personalities.
There is news in the newspaper and in the archives of news sites but what’s front and center is outrage bait opinion pieces from large personalities.
Cable News was theater well before the rise of Social Media.
Social Media didn't invent "sex* sells."
*Sex being the place holder for something that is controversial.
Social Media didn't invent "sex* sells."
*Sex being the place holder for something that is controversial.
So true.
My brother used to watch Fox News (ehh..) but I mostly avoided it just cause. Anyway I sat down to watch one day and everything had scantily clad women no matter what they were discussing. A lot of the time it was about a strip club that got permits in a city somewhere in small town usa. And the segment would basically focus on dancers (no nudity in the shots) but basically everything BUT an ad for going to said strip club, even though the words themselves was "this is ruining America" - the camera angles and everything was butts, boobs and legs.
Anyway that aside. One thing that social media has over cable news is - it's cable not everyone has it, while the internet is pretty much everywhere now.
My brother used to watch Fox News (ehh..) but I mostly avoided it just cause. Anyway I sat down to watch one day and everything had scantily clad women no matter what they were discussing. A lot of the time it was about a strip club that got permits in a city somewhere in small town usa. And the segment would basically focus on dancers (no nudity in the shots) but basically everything BUT an ad for going to said strip club, even though the words themselves was "this is ruining America" - the camera angles and everything was butts, boobs and legs.
Anyway that aside. One thing that social media has over cable news is - it's cable not everyone has it, while the internet is pretty much everywhere now.
The Daily Mail "sidebar of shame" is also a spectacular example of this. They can simultaneously slut-shame celebrities while also advertising where you can buy the outfit in the photo.
Fox News notoriously has a preference for blondes: https://www.theguardian.com/fashion/2017/feb/20/women-fox-ne...
Fox News notoriously has a preference for blondes: https://www.theguardian.com/fashion/2017/feb/20/women-fox-ne...
> "'I'm strictly dickly … I love sex and I love men'. Former presidential candidate's daughter Meghan McCain opens up for Playboy interview." -- Quoted in the Daily Mail
I welcome a service that tells me which celebrities are hollow. I call it "news", give it a try.
Telling you where to buy their clothes is part of the schtick - "Paul is [an idiot], dressed in Gucci pants - $35.000 at ..."
I welcome a service that tells me which celebrities are hollow. I call it "news", give it a try.
Telling you where to buy their clothes is part of the schtick - "Paul is [an idiot], dressed in Gucci pants - $35.000 at ..."
Social media also enrages at a much deeper level.
Say a newspaper printed something. You read it. You got angry. You wrote a letter to the editor and mailed it. Maybe a week later, they printed your letter. A few days later, someone you know saw your letter and commented to you that they thought you were right.
You see something on Facebook. You got angry. You wrote something in reply (perhaps with less thought than the letter to the editor, because it wasn't a once-every-few-years event). Five minutes later, likes comments start pouring in. Not just one person tells you they think you were right; ten people do. And they tell you in the next few minutes and hours, not days later. And they comment on each others' comments about your post.
You get massively more positive reinforcement for your outrage now than you did with newspapers. The outrage gets reinforced, socially ratified. You get praised for it.
It's not just that Facebook hands you more things to be outraged about (not all of them true). It's that the outrage takes much deeper hold in you, because it's reinforced so much.
Say a newspaper printed something. You read it. You got angry. You wrote a letter to the editor and mailed it. Maybe a week later, they printed your letter. A few days later, someone you know saw your letter and commented to you that they thought you were right.
You see something on Facebook. You got angry. You wrote something in reply (perhaps with less thought than the letter to the editor, because it wasn't a once-every-few-years event). Five minutes later, likes comments start pouring in. Not just one person tells you they think you were right; ten people do. And they tell you in the next few minutes and hours, not days later. And they comment on each others' comments about your post.
You get massively more positive reinforcement for your outrage now than you did with newspapers. The outrage gets reinforced, socially ratified. You get praised for it.
It's not just that Facebook hands you more things to be outraged about (not all of them true). It's that the outrage takes much deeper hold in you, because it's reinforced so much.
The difference is that Twitter and Facebook "launder" sources by putting their banner at the top. A sensationalist newspaper piece is typically grounded in some reality, but it appears in your "feed" right next to completely unmoored conspiracy theories from your loonier aunts and uncles. To a passive consumer it all blends together. Even for the active consumer, most them don't have enough information literacy skills to tell the difference or critically examine sources.
This was apparently a recognised KGB propaganda method abroad. Sponsor semi-respectable news sources, and have them quote arbitrarily unreliable articles from elsewhere. Literally information laundering.
I read about it somewhere in an article about ZeroHedge practices, I can't quite find a link now.
EDIT: link: https://streetwiseprofessor.com/how-do-you-know-that-zero-he...
I read about it somewhere in an article about ZeroHedge practices, I can't quite find a link now.
EDIT: link: https://streetwiseprofessor.com/how-do-you-know-that-zero-he...
Obviously continuing to this day. Thanks for bringing this up: it does seem to be an effective tactic.
Yeah. Newspapers after some time develop reputation. So you buy X, but you wouldn't touch Y, no matter the headline.
Then "social media" take a bit of this and a bit of that, and put it all next to each other.
Then "social media" take a bit of this and a bit of that, and put it all next to each other.
Everyone should reflect on this role. All media that’s even vaguely political is taking plays out of the abusive relationship playbook of comforting people by validating their fears and turning their anxiety into anger. All because people keep coming back if their only place to feel safe is your outlet which makes them even more angry.
All this stupidity because we don’t have a metric for successful journalism other than engagement. “Things are good” doesn’t get clicks.
All this stupidity because we don’t have a metric for successful journalism other than engagement. “Things are good” doesn’t get clicks.
A murderer and a surgeon both cut people open. Clearly the implications are different
The difference is that you can't reply to, report, or dogpile a newspaper as much. The outrage on social media is a result from various factions going for each other.
Of course traditional news has the same problem. “If it bleeds, it leads!”
But newspapers are liable for the content they publish, and that keeps misinformation somewhat in check.
If Twitter and Facebook etc were held to publisher standards they couldn’t exist in any form like they do today. I kind of think that would be a good thing.
But newspapers are liable for the content they publish, and that keeps misinformation somewhat in check.
If Twitter and Facebook etc were held to publisher standards they couldn’t exist in any form like they do today. I kind of think that would be a good thing.
I actually don't think the libelous stuff is what is driving most of the polarization, but rather its the rage-generating content like the "war on christmas". And it's not just news sources on the right, this recent NYT article is clearly not national news worthy, except to drive engagement / enragement (just look at the URL they chose): https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/08/us/stewart-allen-clark-pa...
It's important to note that both sides are not equal in this respect: https://medium.com/cybersecurity-for-democracy/far-right-new...
>In particular, content from sources rated as far-right by independent news rating services consistently received the highest engagement per follower of any partisan group.
>In particular, content from sources rated as far-right by independent news rating services consistently received the highest engagement per follower of any partisan group.
People say this a lot, and forget that (a) libel is pretty limited in the US and (b) expensive everywhere and (c) despite being much heavier in the UK still does not restrain our awful press from campaigns of harassment against celebrities they deem appropriate targets for malicious gossip.
I hear this sentiment all of the time as well, not just restricted to cases of libel but it seems most common with libel.
It doesn't matter if something is written down as being against the law/regulations/whatever if the punishment for breaking that law/regulation is toothless, seldom applied, or so expensive to get proceedings started that 90% of the population is priced-out of pursuing their case from the start.
"Just sue them if they write something incorrect/defamatory/etc" is not really a realistic option for the majority of people, not a guarantee of anything happening or reforming, and generally the damage has already been caused. No one really cares about a retraction issued a few months after a story is released, we've all moved on to the next outrage-inducing story.
It doesn't matter if something is written down as being against the law/regulations/whatever if the punishment for breaking that law/regulation is toothless, seldom applied, or so expensive to get proceedings started that 90% of the population is priced-out of pursuing their case from the start.
"Just sue them if they write something incorrect/defamatory/etc" is not really a realistic option for the majority of people, not a guarantee of anything happening or reforming, and generally the damage has already been caused. No one really cares about a retraction issued a few months after a story is released, we've all moved on to the next outrage-inducing story.
Indeed. It costs about a car to engage in the action, and potentially a house if you lose.
I would say The New York Times falsely claiming that Iraq had WMD and helping to champion the Iraq war was far more damaging than anything that has happened on social media.
The MSM may steer clear of the obvious falsehoods like vaportrails/5g mind control, but the misinformation they do provide is extra dangerous, especially when it's a joint effort with the government.
The MSM may steer clear of the obvious falsehoods like vaportrails/5g mind control, but the misinformation they do provide is extra dangerous, especially when it's a joint effort with the government.
> The New York Times falsely claiming that Iraq had WMD
This gets brought up absolutely every single time, and I would love someone to link to the original primary historical sources. Their archive is all on the internet; could some committed person find what they actually said? Did they confirm it themselves, or did they just report what government spokespeople said?
This gets brought up absolutely every single time, and I would love someone to link to the original primary historical sources. Their archive is all on the internet; could some committed person find what they actually said? Did they confirm it themselves, or did they just report what government spokespeople said?
It's more complicated: they repeated lies from the CIA and Bush administration (regarding WMD and the need for an invasion), AND added their own spin on top of this. It's not too different from what they are still doing now.
It's always the same: ignore the part you don't like, amplify facts that will suit your needs, then spin your own narrative on top.
It's always the same: ignore the part you don't like, amplify facts that will suit your needs, then spin your own narrative on top.
They didn't claim to have personally seen the WMDs, but they acknowledged in a 2004 apology (https://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/26/world/from-the-editors-th...) that they created a systematically false impression about the veracity of the evidence. The apology includes references to specific articles if you're interested to read them in detail, but the general thread is an uncritical presentation of uncorroborated evidence from sources who had obvious incentives to mislead the public.
Here's a summary from 2004:
https://nymag.com/nymetro/news/media/features/9226/
"During the winter of 2001 and throughout 2002, Miller produced a series of stunning stories about Saddam Hussein’s ambition and capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, based largely on information provided by Chalabi and his allies—almost all of which have turned out to be stunningly inaccurate."
In short, the Pentagon found a credulous NYT reporter and hooked her up with a succession of fictitious sources, which she ate up and asked for seconds. The NYT repeatedly ran stories on page 1 that were complete fiction, and played a material part in hyping the war under false pretenses (which the paper itself, in its backhanded way, has acknowledged). NYT editors also fought internally AGAINST running any stories that were skeptical of the war or of the administration's statements about Iraq.
https://nymag.com/nymetro/news/media/features/9226/
"During the winter of 2001 and throughout 2002, Miller produced a series of stunning stories about Saddam Hussein’s ambition and capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, based largely on information provided by Chalabi and his allies—almost all of which have turned out to be stunningly inaccurate."
In short, the Pentagon found a credulous NYT reporter and hooked her up with a succession of fictitious sources, which she ate up and asked for seconds. The NYT repeatedly ran stories on page 1 that were complete fiction, and played a material part in hyping the war under false pretenses (which the paper itself, in its backhanded way, has acknowledged). NYT editors also fought internally AGAINST running any stories that were skeptical of the war or of the administration's statements about Iraq.
Many mass media corporations were doing everything they could to encourage the war in Iraq, including cancelling popular talk show hosts who dared to ask questions:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Donahue#MSNBC_program
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Donahue#MSNBC_program
> Donahue commented in 2007 that the management of MSNBC, owned at the time by General Electric, a major defense contractor, required that "we have two conservative (guests) for every liberal. I was counted as two liberals."[23]
Guess the military-industrial complex wins over free speech again.
Guess the military-industrial complex wins over free speech again.
Here's a good analysis: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/the-new-york-times-wmd-cov...
> “If it bleeds, it leads!”
This slogan refers to sensational violence (car crashes, murders, earthquakes), not content that inflames readers ideologically. Maybe it's tawdry in its own way, but it does not seem nearly so polarizing to me.
This slogan refers to sensational violence (car crashes, murders, earthquakes), not content that inflames readers ideologically. Maybe it's tawdry in its own way, but it does not seem nearly so polarizing to me.
Both/and. It's a feedback loop, as well; the press are in it for the shares.
Anyone with the slightest exposure to UK news media will have been confronted with this very recently; the Oprah interview with Harry and Meghan alleging the press campaign against them, subsequent back-and-forth, and finally Piers Morgan getting himself sacked for storming off his own TV show after being contradicted by his own weatherman.
The latter event is both pure old-media failure and an example of the kind of sheer derangement that being a participant in the culture wars can induce in people. At least he wasn't storming the government.
Anyone with the slightest exposure to UK news media will have been confronted with this very recently; the Oprah interview with Harry and Meghan alleging the press campaign against them, subsequent back-and-forth, and finally Piers Morgan getting himself sacked for storming off his own TV show after being contradicted by his own weatherman.
The latter event is both pure old-media failure and an example of the kind of sheer derangement that being a participant in the culture wars can induce in people. At least he wasn't storming the government.
Ehh. He's either in the culture war, or he believes what he says. If you're a Brit you probably see the royal family fairly positively. (Many brits don't like them as people, but think they're handling the transfer of power well, etc.)
His factual correctness and his sincerity are two different things. Who knows what MM is, at heart, but if he has reason to see her negatively why shouldn't he lament her influence over his country?
Is there a time-limit, where you're only allowed to criticize someone for 5y, and so when it hit 6 his opinion was officially stale?
His factual correctness and his sincerity are two different things. Who knows what MM is, at heart, but if he has reason to see her negatively why shouldn't he lament her influence over his country?
Is there a time-limit, where you're only allowed to criticize someone for 5y, and so when it hit 6 his opinion was officially stale?
> His factual correctness and his sincerity
I notice you're not making this argument about MM.
> Is there a time-limit, where you're only allowed to criticize someone for 5y, and so when it hit 6 his opinion was officially stale?
I was referring to events over the past few days. I don't really want to relitigate this here with a green account, only to observe that you too have come in to play outrage and culture war.
I notice you're not making this argument about MM.
> Is there a time-limit, where you're only allowed to criticize someone for 5y, and so when it hit 6 his opinion was officially stale?
I was referring to events over the past few days. I don't really want to relitigate this here with a green account, only to observe that you too have come in to play outrage and culture war.
> > His factual correctness and his sincerity
> I notice you're not making this argument about MM.
I'm not talking about MM at all because your post was about PM. And it's not an argument, it's an observation, and it's true about everyone - that correctness and sincerity are not the same.
> I was referring to events over the past few days.
Right, but those events also have a history. What's an issue of a few days to us, watching from outside, is someone else's years-long story.
> I notice you're not making this argument about MM.
I'm not talking about MM at all because your post was about PM. And it's not an argument, it's an observation, and it's true about everyone - that correctness and sincerity are not the same.
> I was referring to events over the past few days.
Right, but those events also have a history. What's an issue of a few days to us, watching from outside, is someone else's years-long story.
This story is on Yahoo!, which serves numerous stories on its homepage from outrage rags like HuffPost, TheDailyBeast, The Independent, and The Guardian. And, what's more, doesn't allow users to customize their feed by filtering out such sources. They do seem to have a button to 'show less from' sources, but it doesn't seem to work, and doesn't offer to remove them completely. Is this just shoddy product engineering? I'm not sure, I suspect that they know that people will click low quality outrage stories in spite of themselves - you can't resist the temptation to click them when you see them, which is a big part of the reason why I would rather not see them in the first place.
I have two reactions to these kinds of pieces.
The first is to think "of course they are - outrage is the easiest form of engagement and social media is all about easy engagement as that means more eyes to sell."
The second is that there is a delegation of responsibility in these articles. The tone is a "Facebook/Twitter made me act like a jerk." The algorithms may be tuned to surface content that will ruffle your feathers, but the reaction is yours as is the decision to engage with social media at all.
The first is to think "of course they are - outrage is the easiest form of engagement and social media is all about easy engagement as that means more eyes to sell."
The second is that there is a delegation of responsibility in these articles. The tone is a "Facebook/Twitter made me act like a jerk." The algorithms may be tuned to surface content that will ruffle your feathers, but the reaction is yours as is the decision to engage with social media at all.
Well, yes, but this isn't a new problem and society long ago decided that sometimes it has to protect people from themselves. We prosecute drug dealers, we punish cigarette manufacturers, we enforce seat belt laws. I think we will be better off when we understand that social media in its current form is much worse than cigarettes, perhaps even, all things considered, worse than drugs.
ok, so Facebook/Twitter has obviously already decided it is to their benefit that people act like jerks.
So what if they figured out that they could determine who was most likely to be goaded into acting like jerks - like - hey, user 20018 just lost their child, they joined a group for support for people with family members dying of cancer, and their football team lost last night! Start pushing our most highly provocative content at user 20018 stat!
At some point there is a delegation of at least some responsibility - when is that?
So what if they figured out that they could determine who was most likely to be goaded into acting like jerks - like - hey, user 20018 just lost their child, they joined a group for support for people with family members dying of cancer, and their football team lost last night! Start pushing our most highly provocative content at user 20018 stat!
At some point there is a delegation of at least some responsibility - when is that?
It looks like they delegate (or have formerly delegated) this type of intention, to paying customers. That of course doesn't mean the userbase: you'd call it 'advertisers' but Facebook got in some trouble over selling off extremely granular access to targeted advertising, to state actors, foreign governments etc: basically whoever's willing to pay enough.
So, if you're trying to create domestic terrorists, it's extremely valuable to be fed information just like your example represents, to sell off access to that demographic.
Facebook doesn't have to consider it 'provocative content', they see it as 'feeding a demographic to a paying customer'. If you're smart enough about your targeting, you can turn it to 'provoke susceptible people into committing acts of terrorism at rates substantially higher than the baseline likelihood of this'. So it's the foreign intelligence agency that is thinking of 'provoking', and Facebook sort of shrugs and fills the order for targeted demographics, without itself thinking much about whether anything is 'provocative'.
So, if you're trying to create domestic terrorists, it's extremely valuable to be fed information just like your example represents, to sell off access to that demographic.
Facebook doesn't have to consider it 'provocative content', they see it as 'feeding a demographic to a paying customer'. If you're smart enough about your targeting, you can turn it to 'provoke susceptible people into committing acts of terrorism at rates substantially higher than the baseline likelihood of this'. So it's the foreign intelligence agency that is thinking of 'provoking', and Facebook sort of shrugs and fills the order for targeted demographics, without itself thinking much about whether anything is 'provocative'.
good point, the poster I was responding to suggested that delegation of responsibility was happening from the user of facebook not taking responsibility for their own actions, but I guess there is delegation at several levels.
Not just the social media but also the print and TV news. At least here in India about 80% of all the news is rage inducing. Because that’s what drives the TRP which in turn means more advertising money.
And then we have artificially induced rage through sports, mostly cricket, where spectators get riled up and vent it out on, where else, Twitter.
And then we have artificially induced rage through sports, mostly cricket, where spectators get riled up and vent it out on, where else, Twitter.
Right. And my reaction has been to mostly stay away from Facebook and Twitter.
But I’m not the one rioting.
But I’m not the one rioting.
nonotreally(2)
I think you are breaking this down into a sociological statement vs one of individual responsibility.
The first is more useful because the system as a whole may have emergent properties. E.g. think of the opioid crisis and the extra profit incentives for doctors, sales reps creating a vicious cycle.
Hence this is also the best place to frame, and fix the problem.
Of course promoting individual responsibility is good, "don't do drugs" but it is usually not enough.
The first is more useful because the system as a whole may have emergent properties. E.g. think of the opioid crisis and the extra profit incentives for doctors, sales reps creating a vicious cycle.
Hence this is also the best place to frame, and fix the problem.
Of course promoting individual responsibility is good, "don't do drugs" but it is usually not enough.
I hate on Twitter that the `What's Happening` info box loads a half second before your feed. I'm sure that's a deliberate "growth hack" for the outrage machine.
I should figure out how to block elements like that, which of course in the current internet landscape have completely randomized DIV class names.
I should figure out how to block elements like that, which of course in the current internet landscape have completely randomized DIV class names.
I think this falls in line with the quip of ask a question and get crickets. Make an incorrect statement as fact and it will piss someone off enough to give you the answer to your initial question. All engagement metrics are based on actions and time. The long detailed answer and spewing vitriol increase both.
One simple thing twitter can do to reduce enraging behavior and harassment:
De-prioritize "reply guys" that always reply to a a popular account with an incendiary comment.
They get a ton of comments and few likes/RTs (ratio'd) yet reply guys are usually the top response to a popular tweet.
Seriously twitter, why set reply guys as the top response to every tweet? It encourages hostility, and this is but one example.
De-prioritize "reply guys" that always reply to a a popular account with an incendiary comment.
They get a ton of comments and few likes/RTs (ratio'd) yet reply guys are usually the top response to a popular tweet.
Seriously twitter, why set reply guys as the top response to every tweet? It encourages hostility, and this is but one example.
Because they're what everyone wants - the counterpoint. They get ratioed because they aren't preaching to the choir.
You know what posts don't have them? Ones that don't offer them anything. It's generally incendiary posts that are picked apart, and that's because they're easy and worthwhile. They have an audience that would otherwise avoid the message.
You know what posts don't have them? Ones that don't offer them anything. It's generally incendiary posts that are picked apart, and that's because they're easy and worthwhile. They have an audience that would otherwise avoid the message.
I do wish that we had more solid research to back this claim. As it stands the claim that people are incentivized to be enraged is a single person’s opinion that resonate with people’s current beliefs. There are a number of other trends going on at a macro level and it seems like this one is an obvious culprit but nobody is doing the work to collect and analyze the data to back this up.
CGP Grey made a great video on the self-perpetuating cycle of outrage back in 2015: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc
The social media platforms prefer to call it engagement. They never hid this fact and somehow it didn't bother their user base as much as it should have.
Engagement started as 'we want to make our party as good as possible so that you want to come and bring all your friends' and ended up being Kathy Bates in Misery.
Jack Dorsey donated $10 Million to the Antiracist Research Center. It makes me feel he made an outrage machine which outraged himself.
Zuckerberg donated $300 million to "protect American elections."
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/mark-zuckerbergs-d...
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/mark-zuckerbergs-d...
Aren't antiracists a big part of the outrage dynamics though? Take this research center, I assume they spend time and money research how everything is you like is actually terrible and reasons for you to be outraged.
Social commentary:
As I was scanning HN headlines, I thought this said "engaged" instead of "enraged" :)
But my instinctual reaction was the exactly the same: "Hmm yeah I guess they really are manipulating us - that's the world we live in now I guess."
As I was scanning HN headlines, I thought this said "engaged" instead of "enraged" :)
But my instinctual reaction was the exactly the same: "Hmm yeah I guess they really are manipulating us - that's the world we live in now I guess."
The sad thing is that the difference between the 'g' and the 'r' in this case is genocide:
> U.N. human rights experts investigating a possible genocide in Myanmar said on Monday that Facebook had played a role in spreading hate speech there.[0]
[0]: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-myanmar-rohingya-facebook...
> U.N. human rights experts investigating a possible genocide in Myanmar said on Monday that Facebook had played a role in spreading hate speech there.[0]
[0]: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-myanmar-rohingya-facebook...
I made sure to follow people who post nice content about games, indie games, algorithms, aí, ml, pixel art, 3d stuff... And even though twitter keep finding ways of showing me what f** Bolsonaro did or what was the latest news on Big Brother. I deleted my account and never looked back. Same with Facebook.
The word I use for this in casual conversation (not claiming credit for) is "aggro porn". I read once that anger is a powerful (useful) reward circuit in the brain, the problem is it increases stress hormones which have deleterious effects over time.
I'm sure it's intentional but I presume it's also somewhat inevitable that platforms with user generated and user amplified content will represent the reward circuits of the brain. Which, at 30,000 ft. makes it obvious which circuits Instagram, Tiktok, Reddit, et.al., even Hacker News are triggering.
I'm sure it's intentional but I presume it's also somewhat inevitable that platforms with user generated and user amplified content will represent the reward circuits of the brain. Which, at 30,000 ft. makes it obvious which circuits Instagram, Tiktok, Reddit, et.al., even Hacker News are triggering.
I solved this issue by removing people on fb who post political messages. It is surprising how tame, relaxing and good natured my fees is. Good luck trying to foster some inflammatory thread.
What percentage of your social network did you have to block to achieve that?
I have often felt that if everyone were rate-limited to two or three upvotes/likes per day, the world might be a more-meaningful place.
Hate spreads virally on social media.
Perhaps we need some "social distancing measures" such as thise you suggested to "slow the spread" of hatred on social media.
Perhaps we need some "social distancing measures" such as thise you suggested to "slow the spread" of hatred on social media.
I think there is a presupposition that being enraged is always bad. If the government is not working and all online dissent is oppressed by algorithms no one will be able to effect change and then you will have an enragement bubble so to speak. That bubble bursting will be much worse than people simply being enraged and voicing their concerns.
As I've said before, the question is whether they're real concerns. The concerns of, say, Belarus citizens protesting against their government seem pretty real. The concerns of people spreading rumours against ethnic minority groups in Myanmar and other places are based in falsehood. As were the Qanon crowd.
Did you miss the genocide in Myanmar? That doesn't look much like "people voicing their concern":
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-46105934
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-46105934
I'm not aware of any information suggesting that Facebook's engagement algorithms specifically were responsible for this. The criticisms in this article are about how Facebook needs to ban certain categories of violent content, not simply tweak the newsfeed to deprioritize them.
Ironic that this post wants us to be concerned about other platforms optimizing posts that make their users concerned
There was a good article [0] in The Atlantic yesterday linking this centralized algorithmic vitriol to the decline of democracy in America. The article also suggests some techno-legal fixes that I'm leery of, but I think its diagnosis of the issue is spot-on.
[0] https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2021/04/the-int... (paywalled)
[0] https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2021/04/the-int... (paywalled)
What does a "decline of democracy", especially if applied to the US, mean?
(Yes, I've skimmed the article; still don't understand.)
(Yes, I've skimmed the article; still don't understand.)
In short, Tocqueville's notion was that democracy works in America (in contrast to the 1st Republic) because we Americans handle almost everything at as local a level as possible and are willing to get along and work together to do what needs to be done; social media outrage has brought local matters to the national scope and has made us uncompromising enemies, rather than allies, of our neighbors, which has crippled our ability to productively and effectively deal with governmental and political matters. I.E., the article regards a decline in the efficacy of democracy in America rather than a decline in the practice of democracy in America.
Unfortunately you export it over the world as well, all these stupid fights spill over the oceans.
Of course, so do articles about the algorithms.
It's turtles all the way down.
It's turtles all the way down.
If you are going to claim that people are incentivized to do something, you had better state what those incentives are. Are there editors left at Yahoo?
Is it not implicitly obvious that money is the incentive?
The article is pretty light on how these platforms do so.
Do they not simply bubble up popular posts: ones with likes, retweets, and comments? That might mean a politicized post, but it also could be a positive one about the kindness of a stranger or some cute picture of your kids.
These platforms may well be incentivizing enraging posts. I just don't know how they're doing it, and this article did not help me understand it.
Do they not simply bubble up popular posts: ones with likes, retweets, and comments? That might mean a politicized post, but it also could be a positive one about the kindness of a stranger or some cute picture of your kids.
These platforms may well be incentivizing enraging posts. I just don't know how they're doing it, and this article did not help me understand it.
I’m going to take a moment to plug The Congressional Research Service. They produce reports on every topical issue. Free, readable, and timely. Stop reading the news/social media and get informed (by a variety of higher quality sources).
Enraged is an easy form of engagement. Perhaps rage is the junk food of emotions...
People are getting increasingly enraged because there is a palpable culture shift happening in the western world, creating a giant rift in fundamental principles, societal perspectives, and interpretation of current events. When we can't agree on any of these things, the other side seems radical and unhinged when interpreted through our own set of values/principles.
The "enrage machine" is simply a product of this phenomenon. Sure, you can try and reduce the rage by censoring and banning minority views off the platform, but the underlying problem is still there. The angry division is still there, whether you're hearing it on social media, cable news, talk radio, or Thanksgiving dinner.
The "enrage machine" is simply a product of this phenomenon. Sure, you can try and reduce the rage by censoring and banning minority views off the platform, but the underlying problem is still there. The angry division is still there, whether you're hearing it on social media, cable news, talk radio, or Thanksgiving dinner.
I always thought Techdirt should be called Daily Outrage. When its all about eyeballs on pages of course things that draw attention will be prioritized.
How is this different than traditional news headline construction, other than it being done manually?
Let's not forget YouTube in this
Obviously. Public gossip, rumours, hype and outrage sells and gives more eye balls and clicks.
i think they’re tailored to optimize for clicks. and the users themselves are the ones the click these enraging stories and therefore train the ml algorithms to show more of that
prof Scott Galloway has been screaming about this for some time on his Pivot podcast with Kara Swisher.
The irony is palpable
You should try a 4chan /pol "you rage you loose" thread.
Definitely. They allowed Trump's posts because it got people enraged, every tweet causing a storm of tweets from all camps, all going after each other and trying to 'debate', but in the end it became a meaningless cauldron of activity with a net effect of zero...
...for the participants anyway, for Twitter, any engagement, any activity, any pair of eyes on their service translates to money, both directly (ad impressions) and indirectly (engagement correlates with stock price). In the past year - less Trump, more Covidiots - Twitter's stock price has doubled.
...for the participants anyway, for Twitter, any engagement, any activity, any pair of eyes on their service translates to money, both directly (ad impressions) and indirectly (engagement correlates with stock price). In the past year - less Trump, more Covidiots - Twitter's stock price has doubled.
It's an interesting one.
The objective function for serving content surely isn't literally to get people angry, rather to "promote engagement" or whatever, which turns out to be the same thing.
Can you ban a company from trying to optimise its key metrics? No. So what do you do? If the enraging content is there anyway, what's wrong with pointing people to it? If you're allowed to sell dynamite to the public in your shop, why not point angry customers to it?
To me the whole model is broken, and picking individual bits of it that aren't is not the constructive approach.
The objective function for serving content surely isn't literally to get people angry, rather to "promote engagement" or whatever, which turns out to be the same thing.
Can you ban a company from trying to optimise its key metrics? No. So what do you do? If the enraging content is there anyway, what's wrong with pointing people to it? If you're allowed to sell dynamite to the public in your shop, why not point angry customers to it?
To me the whole model is broken, and picking individual bits of it that aren't is not the constructive approach.
Nobody is forcing us to read the news, participate in social media etc. We can pick and choose what news to consume and from where (yeah, most news sites are crap, I get that).
There is no way these sites are gonna police themselves and there is no way for us to expect the govt to control them. There is just too much ad money and too much access to data, they are not going to give that up. But there is an easy solution to this. Just refuse to participate and consume only the absolute bare minimum news, social media etc.
Social media is not email or SMS, they are not necessary for daily life. One can easily live without Facebook/Twitter/Instagram etc (and many do), unlike say GMail.
There is no way these sites are gonna police themselves and there is no way for us to expect the govt to control them. There is just too much ad money and too much access to data, they are not going to give that up. But there is an easy solution to this. Just refuse to participate and consume only the absolute bare minimum news, social media etc.
Social media is not email or SMS, they are not necessary for daily life. One can easily live without Facebook/Twitter/Instagram etc (and many do), unlike say GMail.
Youtube at least started forcing news on everyone last year. It was really obvious for me since I never watched news on youtube. There would be two or three rows of normal stuff and then a "covid/politics" row full of CNN/CNBC/BBC/whatever saying the world is ending.
I've solved the problem personally by blocking youtube and now I have more time for my girlfriend and side projects.
I've solved the problem personally by blocking youtube and now I have more time for my girlfriend and side projects.
If you want to make a system that is solely on getting eyeballs to look at advertisements the best way to do that is controversy. If you really understand social media how to get an advertisement for free on CNN is to say something controversial enough on Twitter that CNN will show a story of it. What we are witnessing is the disruption of original sources of information (TV / Newspapers / Magazines) into a more algorithmic system. A bunch of people do things like "blame the algorithm" but instead you have to consider that it is a cybernetic system with both artificial agents and people interacting with each other and the accountability doesn't disappear at the part of the algorithm the accountability is with the organizations that deploy it.