Post

litzz11
@litzz11.bsky.social

It’s the damn algorithms. Years ago there was a NYT podcast about how the algorithms had changed. They interviewed a former Youtube engineer who had warned them that their new algorithm rewarded extremism but he had a fix for it. They refused to change it.

James Umbanhowar
@jumbanho.bsky.social

I took a class on IT and society in the early 90s cotaught by a US and a 🇧🇷 prof. It was so enlightening to get the perspective of someone raised in an autocracy.

ryan cooper
@ryanlcooper.com

something I'd add to this is that social media, by selecting for the most attention-grabbing content, simultaneously mass produces angry, paranoid, xenophobic morons (ie fascists) and undermines the foundation of public literacy itself

Creep-uscular Canard
@turnitup5000db.bsky.social

It’s the streamlined nature of it. People have always been assholes but the ease of production and the streamlined, formulaic ease of digestion makes it particularly prone to outrage porn. Combined with algorithmic selection for popularity, you get addiction to rage.

ryan cooper
@ryanlcooper.com

you have a situation where instead of swing voters making decisions informed at least partly by eg, the local newspaper they glance at occasionally, it's entirely delirious lunatics on TikTok

John Kostyack
@kostyack.bsky.social

The author has a reasonable suggestion for reining in this algorithmic steering: "Simply making platforms assume publisher liability for the content that gets served by “For You” pages and similar endless scroll mechanisms would be a massive step towards bringing these companies under control."

william ⁂ maggos
@wjmaggos.liberal.city.ap.brid.gy

@ryanlcooper.com those shouldn't be called social media, they are algo media. they don't let people decide what goes viral. but decentralized social media does and that's revolutionary. it makes possible taking away the power over public attention away from mass media owners and advertisers also.

Corey Atad
@coreyatad.com

i'd take it even a step further than you do: it's not that social media produces fascists, but that it produces antisocial behaviour broadly, where even good acts of protest can quickly devolve online into just another method for expressing antisocial impulses in a way that feels "safe" to do

ryan cooper
@ryanlcooper.com

yeah, I think that's right. and relatedly I think it cannibalizes in-person social institutions by substituting a worse but omnipresent version of human interactions

Jacob Kramer-Duffield
@jaykaydee.bsky.social

true but/and when newspapers were the only mass media there were many which catered to "the most attention-grabbing content producing angry, paranoid, xenophobic morons (ie fascists)"; Father Coughlin did the same on radio; and this was what Network was about. Not wrong but not monocausal!

ryan cooper
@ryanlcooper.com

yes, but I think there are key differences in that traditional publishers are legally liable for what they produce, and radio/TV creates a mass public in a way social media does not

functional moron
@fiveburger.bsky.social

imo we should make a law that says algorithmic feeds made by a company on social media are considered to be publishing under section 230. either show things chronologically or be responsible for what you’re showing

ryan cooper
@ryanlcooper.com

it's crazy that they've gotten away with this for so long. in many ways it's much more speech-like than traditional publishing! Penguin Random House doesn't shove particular books directly into your face

Bluff-city-dweller
@bluff-city-dweller.bsky.social

Hmm. Primaries and multiple "go backs" have helped the apathy spread. Ranked voting could help solve that and save money all around. Apathetic voters- what is causing that? Cuz we get exactly what we vote for. Like it or not: I/you/we are the government.

Philo of Alexan
@philoof.bsky.social

I’m trying to reconcile the idea that the printing press created greater freedom and democracy through access to information but social media did not. Arguably the printing press didn’t immediately create more democracy, but this is as far as I’ve gotten with this idea.

No one of consequence
@stackman.bsky.social

It's not social media, it's the paradox of open media. Free expression requires giving a platform to those who would ultimately seek to control expression, and every new medium sidesteps existing, hard-fought guardrails. Swap "social media" for "newspaper" and date it 1895 and the headline tracks.

No one of consequence
@stackman.bsky.social

Which is not to say we "shouldn't worry" but rather to emphasize that those guardrails that have been sidestepped were *hard-fought*, often literally, and we need to do the same hard work for others that was done for us.

Tony Hill
@tonyhill.bsky.social

There really should be some kind of regulation / control of the big social media companies. bsky.app/profile/chad...

Mark Chadbourn@chadbourn.bsky.social

US social media companies are interfering in the Brazilian elections in favour of the Far Right’s Flávio Bolsonaro. Meta is the latest. It’s just blocked the campaign account of President Lula in the final stretch of the election.

elespectador.comMeta restringe la cuenta de Lula y su partido alerta por posible injerencia extranjeraDe cara a las elecciones en Brasil, Lula enfrenta a Meta por restringir su cuenta mientras su partido alerta por posible injerencia extranjera.