GooberTheHat wrote:The thing is, the algorithms don't thrive on conflict, we do. The algorithms give us what they think we want based on our viewing habits and those of people like us. If they are serving up aggravating content, that's because that's what that viewer likes to watch (at least what grasps their attention).b0r1s wrote:...that is a relatively easy fix compared to (as Brooks mentions) the core issue with the algos. They thrive on conflict and that has led to the population being combative. Even if there is an algo change now it is still going to take years or even decades for that worldwide confrontational attitude to change.
Roujin wrote:I think there is scope for law to be passed that mandates a minimum acceptable level of human oversight on these platforms in addition to the automated moderation that takes place.
hunk wrote:The irony of the internet. We have the power to search entire encyclopedia's and journals at our fingertips yet humanity prefers q-anon, hate groups and consumerism. Oh and pets. All because of eyeball engagement.
Tempy wrote:hunk wrote:The irony of the internet. We have the power to search entire encyclopedia's and journals at our fingertips yet humanity prefers q-anon, hate groups and consumerism. Oh and pets. All because of eyeball engagement.
Does it? or is it just very select and vocal few that have created an echo chamber that is magnified due to associations with populism?
poprock wrote:I read some stuff recently about how the advertising industry might need to adapt if social media starts to change, regulation comes in, users start to drift away from the big central platforms, etc. Lots of tech and ad analysts bleating on about how, if microtargeting is unsustainable, advertisers need to develop methods of working with minimal audience data, instead of the maximum they’ve been used to. I mean … isn’t that just going back to how advertising always used to work? It’s not fucking rocket science, is it?
Roujin wrote:I don't think moderation of people calling for the death of US Senators and inciting violence for example will make them change their minds. Moderation of these platforms can only silence these people, their posts are removed until they agree to delete them and they get their account back, or what they wrote is so bad they are banned. Let's come at this from another angle, what should we be doing then, when we are confronted by hate on a social media platform to help these people? Edit: FTR I'm on the bare man can get the block and delete treatment, but am open to other avenues for dealing with hate speech whatever they may be.
GurtTractor wrote:Somewhere for people to generate and talk about dissent is an essential part of a reasonably free society.
Roujin wrote:Well the thing is, if you go to a private park and just shout racist things at people, someone will complain and then someone from security comes and removes you. If you go to a public space and shout racist things, someone will complain and the the police will come and have a word. I don't understand why there is a drive to allow people to spout nonsense that's harmful online? If you do that in public, no one starts a conversation with you to talk you around into not being a piece of shit?
Have you done an accidental racism online and been dunked on for it in the past?
GurtTractor wrote:You can imagine any sort of proposal about say, an alternate political system being seen as 'dangerous'.
GurtTractor wrote:Nope. I do hate what seems like a 'dunk culture' though, which is like a big ugly pile-on to people's mistakes, Twitter is particularly suited to it. It's almost seems like a sport to some people. Criticism is a good thing, it's just the nature of how people do it that I object to, I think it's ultimately counter-productive.Have you done an accidental racism online and been dunked on for it in the past?
Yossarian wrote:No I can’t, not when I can buy this from Amazon: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Communist-Manifesto-Artimorean-Classics/dp/B08SB6QP3D/ref=mp_s_a_1_3 Or this: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Capital-Critique-Political-Economy-Classics/dp/0140445684GurtTractor wrote:You can imagine any sort of proposal about say, an alternate political system being seen as 'dangerous'.
Roujin wrote:I'll be honest, there is as much dunking on twitter as there is people posting hate. No one likes getting dunked on, if you say something out of ignorance, or because you hold viewpoints that others don't like and they descend on your tweet and correct you, maybe take the hint that what you posted was pretty dumb and that a sizable chunk of people are disagreeing with you. That's the thing with free speech and platforms like twitter, if you want to voice your opinion publicly to everyone on the platform, then you have to accept that everyone is entitled to their response to you.Nope. I do hate what seems like a 'dunk culture' though, which is like a big ugly pile-on to people's mistakes, Twitter is particularly suited to it. It's almost seems like a sport to some people. Criticism is a good thing, it's just the nature of how people do it that I object to, I think it's ultimately counter-productive.Have you done an accidental racism online and been dunked on for it in the past?
Roujin wrote:It sounds like what you really want gurt is a safe space where people can raise their challenging rhetoric without fear of people with furries for avatars dropping sassy gifs in reply and shutting down reasoned debate by showing up the absurdity of the original opinion posted.
GurtTractor wrote:Thanks for another shining example of the sort of cuntery I'm trying to highlight and dissuade people from, lumping me in as someone reprehensible. Sort yourself out.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!