There is no truth to it. The vast majority of negative interactions and aberations on a social media site is brought about by the users, not by the operators of the site. These tools they have are not as powerful as you think they are. The only reason they have any power at all is because the users give them that power because that is what they want. You don’t have a successful site by manipulating the user base to do what you want them to do, they will just leave. You simply give them what they want and they never leave. “The algorithm” is there to give the user what they want, and they’re actually really bad at doing that.
Purely anecdotal, but I have two Facebook profiles. I’m extremely left leaning, especially in the fake one, yet both have their feeds blowing up with articles from conservative pages and groups about this “small town” song, Donald Trump, and Ron DeSantis. Oh, and Fox News articles too, up until I hid them.
I don’t engage with any of those communities or anything even tangentially related to them. I have discussed all of those concepts in groups lately, though.
The fact that the user is the one imputing the data to determine the received content in some way. You’re selecting the content you interact with, not a black box trying to take over the population. They just want you to stay on the site, look at the ads, and never leave. They don’t care about your political allegiance or what movies you like, they will feed you whatever you want.
I only really ever comment when I have something to say. This usually is only when I disagree with something.
That’s why my upvote ratio is terrible. I rarely comment when I agree with something someone has said. I bet my ratio would be a lot better if I did.
But that’s just human nature, I think. Some people crave acceptance and validation so they comment agreement and some people crave conflict and challenge, so they comment in disagreement.
You’re attributing combative interaction to an algorithm on a site that has no algorithm. Congratulations you just proved the algorithm isnt needed to cause interaction. People do this with no computer forcing them to, but tons of people here are convinced that every other site is filled with bots manipulating content for people when the people are asking for the content, sometimes very directly.
So you understand the system very well, yet completely ignore the ethically dubious aspects of the system.
People are not born desiring harmful garbage. They are, at least in part, taught, conditioned to desire it.
When you say that a site “feeds you whatever you want”, you’re ignoring the chicken-or-the-egg pattern of desire and satisfaction on the market. The site teaches you want you want. Internet addiction and the ways in which contemporary media and tech affect your mind (most obviously by reducing people’s attention spans) are fairly well known today.
Imagine a drug dealer who sells his garbage to the same person so much that they develop an addiction. With your logic, we can just blame the junkie who keeps returning to the dealer, while the dealer is pretty much innocent - surely it’s not his responsibility if someone else develops an addiction and destroys their life!
There is no truth to it. The vast majority of negative interactions and aberations on a social media site is brought about by the users, not by the operators of the site. These tools they have are not as powerful as you think they are. The only reason they have any power at all is because the users give them that power because that is what they want. You don’t have a successful site by manipulating the user base to do what you want them to do, they will just leave. You simply give them what they want and they never leave. “The algorithm” is there to give the user what they want, and they’re actually really bad at doing that.
Purely anecdotal, but I have two Facebook profiles. I’m extremely left leaning, especially in the fake one, yet both have their feeds blowing up with articles from conservative pages and groups about this “small town” song, Donald Trump, and Ron DeSantis. Oh, and Fox News articles too, up until I hid them.
I don’t engage with any of those communities or anything even tangentially related to them. I have discussed all of those concepts in groups lately, though.
The users create the content, the background ai decides which content to prioritize and promote to the front page, etc…
Which part of that is wrong?
The fact that the user is the one imputing the data to determine the received content in some way. You’re selecting the content you interact with, not a black box trying to take over the population. They just want you to stay on the site, look at the ads, and never leave. They don’t care about your political allegiance or what movies you like, they will feed you whatever you want.
Agreed!!!
The user selects the content that they interact with, but because content that upsets you is so engaging, the AI will heartily promote it.
look at how engaged you are with these comments! Is it because they make you upset?
How interesting. ;-)
I only really ever comment when I have something to say. This usually is only when I disagree with something.
That’s why my upvote ratio is terrible. I rarely comment when I agree with something someone has said. I bet my ratio would be a lot better if I did.
But that’s just human nature, I think. Some people crave acceptance and validation so they comment agreement and some people crave conflict and challenge, so they comment in disagreement.
Everyone is the hero of their own story, so I think they feel the need to “correct” perceived injustices.
I think your experience is common.
And I think AI exploits this, because it’s useful.
I agree 100%
You’re attributing combative interaction to an algorithm on a site that has no algorithm. Congratulations you just proved the algorithm isnt needed to cause interaction. People do this with no computer forcing them to, but tons of people here are convinced that every other site is filled with bots manipulating content for people when the people are asking for the content, sometimes very directly.
I’m attributing combative interactions to “keeping your attention”
The ai just exploits this.
So while it’s not NEEDED, it does happen and it works.
Maybe your point is better worded as “the AI doesn’t overrule your own ability to choose”
Which while true, doesn’t change my point. Combative interactions happen without ai, the ai just learns and promotes them.
So you understand the system very well, yet completely ignore the ethically dubious aspects of the system.
People are not born desiring harmful garbage. They are, at least in part, taught, conditioned to desire it.
When you say that a site “feeds you whatever you want”, you’re ignoring the chicken-or-the-egg pattern of desire and satisfaction on the market. The site teaches you want you want. Internet addiction and the ways in which contemporary media and tech affect your mind (most obviously by reducing people’s attention spans) are fairly well known today.
Imagine a drug dealer who sells his garbage to the same person so much that they develop an addiction. With your logic, we can just blame the junkie who keeps returning to the dealer, while the dealer is pretty much innocent - surely it’s not his responsibility if someone else develops an addiction and destroys their life!