> "While social media connects people, most believe it has fueled societal divisions by creating echo chambers."
I think this issue of echo chambers exists because people become religious of their communities and refuse to listen to opinions of another communities - not because social media are flawed themselves.
Llamamoe 6 days ago [-]
You're basically saying "I believe the problem exists because of the way human nature interacts with social media, not social media themselves".
And sure, maybe it'd work for baboons, crows, or ants, if they ever evolved sufficient intelligence. But it doesn't for human.
Attributing personal blame for systemic issues is just silly. If it happens everywhere, it's not happening as a product of individual, malleable factors but because it's a natural consequence of the factors that add up to it.
sebastialonso 5 days ago [-]
But you're also using "social media" a shorthand for "algorithmic-based attention-maximizing recommendation machine". That's the current implementation of the bigger and most impactful social networks.
Networks that don't work with that model, tend to be much more wholesome. And they work.
Llamamoe 4 days ago [-]
Sure, different forms of social media could exist. And then get outcompeted by as you aptly call it "algorithmic-based attention-maximizing recommendation machines".
Even if you introduced regulations against many of these practices, corporations would still strive to optimise this aspect of their platforms in different ways.
Even if we removed capitalistic incentives from the equation, more attention-grabbing platforms would still be selected for.
I'm not saying it's an intractable problem, but rather that this outcome is happening for a very good reason.
sebastialonso 4 days ago [-]
Yes, because it's not intractable. It's just a good definition and statement of the problem. Without that, you can even being thinking about solutions or make sensible assessments.
Sharks are not vicious killing machines. Hungry and aggressive instances of sharks are killing machines.
Llamamoe 3 days ago [-]
You'd need to somehow get rid of every predatory platform that exists to even entertain the notion of people making the switch to a new, less-engaging one.
giovannibonetti 5 days ago [-]
Messaging platforms like WhatsApp come to mind
ArinaS 5 days ago [-]
Well these are messengers, not social media. The only social media platforms without algorithms I can think of are decentralized, i.e. what can be described as "fediverse".
5 days ago [-]
jfcpauk 5 days ago [-]
All they did was point out humans have trended towards tribalism since… forever.
Social media has not remade our genome.
ben_w 5 days ago [-]
The algorithm of business development in the web era is A/B testing (and its cousin, multivariate testing). It is a still genetic algorithm, even though the "genome" of a website is not measured by base pairs of nucleic acids. And the algorithm is used to optimise the consumption of our mental resources — our attention is what it "metabolises" into money.
alganet 5 days ago [-]
On the contrary. Genetic and archeological evidence portrays humans as intermixing since the very beginning.
A survey by an online magazine is far, far from any evidence. Since it did not disclosed the methods, it is probably editorial.
The article is a cloaked ad for social AI that hooks on nostalgia for old internet times. It's useless.
Edit. They actually disclose it is an editorial ad:
> was commissioned by Verge editorial leadership, with surveys from Two Cents Insights. The Vox Media Insights and Research team surveyed over 2,000 US adults representing the US population in December 2024. Two Cents Insights is a boutique research agency that partners with brands and digital platforms to transform research into actionable insights. Its expertise lies at the intersection of consumer needs and business goals, fueling differentiated go-to-market strategies and customer-centric product development.
ben_w 6 days ago [-]
Facebook's attempt to broaden my social circles consists of showing me reels even though I keep clicking the button saying "don't show me reels", a list of people it thinks I might know but usually don't, and adverts every third post for things which are often not available in my country or for my gender.
--
Half the real content is promoted messages from groups such as "U.S. Naval Institue" and "KentLive".
The remaining posts are 80% from only one person I actually know, and their posts are mostly pro-Palesteine or blaming the Democrats for Trump.
I am a British citizen and live in Berlin.
--
I can definitely blame Facebook for giving me an experience on par with my attempt to run a phpBB forum in the late 2000s only to find it got no real users and a lot of spammers.
alganet 5 days ago [-]
- "We're bringing the old internet back."
- "Cool! That was what everyone always wanted. Wait, what is that?"
- "Some yet to be defined role for AI, don't worry about it."
Please, stop forcing it guys. Let it grow naturally. I know you all want that sweet return of investment very soon in any way shape or form possible, but this is getting ridiculous.
ashoeafoot 5 days ago [-]
Who are very hostile towards newcomers. One can easily imagine a sort of lepards island quarantine community, outside of the actual community , where all the bots, problematic people and social sellouts die a social death, while the honest enthusiasts after a year and a day are allowed in. No feeds, no algos on the inside, just people .
tldr; Public discussions carry too much risk if you discuss anything honestly, you get brigaded or doxed, or things are taken out of context or re-framed by someone based on their own biases of "what you really meant". So people have gone more towards sharing their views or having honest discussions in smaller more trusted groups.
metalman 6 days ago [-]
the future of the internet is greater personal power and autonomy.....everyone will get there own personal web space, to write, create, sell, buy, and comunicate, they own it, it's "free"
one to one comunication will be protected in the same way that physical mail has been protected for centuries, ie: dont touch without a warrant
groups will have less and less privacy, the larger they are, and a crime by one, is a crime by all
ie: just dont do it, play nice, no conspiracy's or calls for insurection
platforms will die, unless they can attract and nurture tallent, that out competes all of the indipendents......which is very likely...as top performers, always need team support
Whoppertime 6 days ago [-]
It seems like the big tent entertainment projects bringing people from various echo chambers have ended temporarily. 2019 was the release of Avengers Endgame and Star Wars Episode 9. I don't think the subsequent releases in those franchises were nearly as good at bringing in a wide audience
Rendered at 08:21:32 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Vercel.
I think this issue of echo chambers exists because people become religious of their communities and refuse to listen to opinions of another communities - not because social media are flawed themselves.
And sure, maybe it'd work for baboons, crows, or ants, if they ever evolved sufficient intelligence. But it doesn't for human.
Attributing personal blame for systemic issues is just silly. If it happens everywhere, it's not happening as a product of individual, malleable factors but because it's a natural consequence of the factors that add up to it.
Networks that don't work with that model, tend to be much more wholesome. And they work.
Even if you introduced regulations against many of these practices, corporations would still strive to optimise this aspect of their platforms in different ways.
Even if we removed capitalistic incentives from the equation, more attention-grabbing platforms would still be selected for.
I'm not saying it's an intractable problem, but rather that this outcome is happening for a very good reason.
Sharks are not vicious killing machines. Hungry and aggressive instances of sharks are killing machines.
Social media has not remade our genome.
A survey by an online magazine is far, far from any evidence. Since it did not disclosed the methods, it is probably editorial.
The article is a cloaked ad for social AI that hooks on nostalgia for old internet times. It's useless.
Edit. They actually disclose it is an editorial ad:
> was commissioned by Verge editorial leadership, with surveys from Two Cents Insights. The Vox Media Insights and Research team surveyed over 2,000 US adults representing the US population in December 2024. Two Cents Insights is a boutique research agency that partners with brands and digital platforms to transform research into actionable insights. Its expertise lies at the intersection of consumer needs and business goals, fueling differentiated go-to-market strategies and customer-centric product development.
--
Half the real content is promoted messages from groups such as "U.S. Naval Institue" and "KentLive".
The remaining posts are 80% from only one person I actually know, and their posts are mostly pro-Palesteine or blaming the Democrats for Trump.
I am a British citizen and live in Berlin.
--
I can definitely blame Facebook for giving me an experience on par with my attempt to run a phpBB forum in the late 2000s only to find it got no real users and a lot of spammers.
- "Cool! That was what everyone always wanted. Wait, what is that?"
- "Some yet to be defined role for AI, don't worry about it."
Please, stop forcing it guys. Let it grow naturally. I know you all want that sweet return of investment very soon in any way shape or form possible, but this is getting ridiculous.
https://danielmiessler.com/blog/the-intellectual-dark-web-is...
tldr; Public discussions carry too much risk if you discuss anything honestly, you get brigaded or doxed, or things are taken out of context or re-framed by someone based on their own biases of "what you really meant". So people have gone more towards sharing their views or having honest discussions in smaller more trusted groups.