Technology

37737 readers

559 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

"For you" isn't - The case against corporate algorithmic feeds (www.staygrounded.online)

submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

11 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Puts to words a lot of my feelings about mainstream social media.

It's a big ball of algorithms that skew "communication platforms" away from facilitating the thing they were created for.

If you're not spending as much time in comment sections, actually reading what people have to say, and writing responses, as you do scrolling, that media ain't "social".

And the communication that does occur on most platforms, is parasocial. While that's not inherently bad, facilitating only that kind of "exchange", is.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Algorithms are incredibly bad for organic relationships, you should see the thoughts and events around the people you know when they happen, not when some corporation thinks you should be more receptive. Direct feeds and chatrooms are much better at being social environments.

That said, there is an inevitable parasocial aspect to media and that is not necessarily bad. I don't want to build a relationship with actors, even thinking that is a possibility is unhealthy. I just want to see their work for entertainment, and the same applies for many artists and influencers for social media. For that purpose, it wouldn't be too bad to have algorithms, as long as users could tweak them to their own liking. That would help a lot with discoverability.

The problem is that these algorithms are 100% obscured and driven by company interests, such as getting people to scroll forever (and see more ads) by shoving posts which elicit outrage at their face. Even though there are issues I care deeply about, in algorithm driven social media I got into the habit of just skipping and muting whatever is too revolting, because if I so much as browse it too much, they start to show solely that sort of misery, all the time. It's just bad for people's sanity and it doesn't even help anyone at the end of the day.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Well said, your comment reminded me of this essay I recently read by @carl that has a great opening analogy:

Imagine all the squares, streets, parks, and venues you visit or live by in are owned by just one or a few companies. They not only own all these places but also determine what they are to be used for, and who can use them. They decide who can be there and who cannot. Mostly, it's free rent, for these companies finance everything through advertising.

Because of this, all places are designed so that everyone will consume the advertising. In the town hall, the agenda of the municipal council is adapted according to the length of advertising breaks. In the park, you can hear advertisements over the loudspeakers at regular intervals. At the playground, there's advertising targeted at the very youngest, and at the retirement home, ads for the very oldest.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Yes exactly! It's much more "media" and not much "social" these days.