Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sy Borg]

Numerous commentators have noted that societal divisions are aggravated by the algorithms of social media, effectively pushing people into informational silos.

The algorithms, just as famously, are not programmed for the greater good, but greater profit. Ideally, a user would exercise creativity and actively search for information or entertainment. However, it's clear that automated feeds are deeply influential. An equivalent situation in nature would be the decision to take a nearby unripe fruit or to get up and go searching for a riper one. If a resource is readily on offer, most animals will simply take it, incurring an opportunity cost. It's the old truism played out, a bird in hand is worth two in the bush.

My own feeds, and others I have seen, strike me as tedious and repetitive. It's as though Taylorist specialisation infected the thinking of the programmers, as they tacitly encourage each "unit" to be limited and predictable, to prefer reassurance to exploration.

Early on, I enjoyed the random nature of YouTube recommendations. It could be just about anything. Now that the technology is more "intelligent", it dumbs us down, effectively absorbing our creativity and reflecting a pale version back at us.

So I would argue that societies would benefit from social media platforms re-introducing an element of randomness to all feeds, and that randomness would not be responsive to feedback. I would also recommend that it selects some content that is opposite, or at least tangential, to our usual choices.

Any thoughts?

[LuckyR]

Numerous commentators have noted that societal divisions are aggravated by the algorithms of social media, effectively pushing people into informational silos.

The algorithms, just as famously, are not programmed for the greater good, but greater profit. Ideally, a user would exercise creativity and actively search for information or entertainment. However, it's clear that automated feeds are deeply influential. An equivalent situation in nature would be the decision to take a nearby unripe fruit or to get up and go searching for a riper one. If a resource is readily on offer, most animals will simply take it, incurring an opportunity cost. It's the old truism played out, a bird in hand is worth two in the bush.

My own feeds, and others I have seen, strike me as tedious and repetitive. It's as though Taylorist specialisation infected the thinking of the programmers, as they tacitly encourage each "unit" to be limited and predictable, to prefer reassurance to exploration.

Early on, I enjoyed the random nature of YouTube recommendations. It could be just about anything. Now that the technology is more "intelligent", it dumbs us down, effectively absorbing our creativity and reflecting a pale version back at us.

So I would argue that societies would benefit from social media platforms re-introducing an element of randomness to all feeds, and that randomness would not be responsive to feedback. I would also recommend that it selects some content that is opposite, or at least tangential, to our usual choices.

Any thoughts?

Random recommendations are definitely superior (to society) than curated recommendations. I am speaking of news, not advertising. Of course if I just looked up raincoats, sending me ads on raincoats, umbrellas and tropical vacations makes sense and is potentially valuable. OTOH if I search "critical race theory", sending me news/propaganda on/from the National Rifle Association, Fox news, Qanon, the KKK, the Aryan brotherhood and the American Nazi party is not good for the country.

[Roobaba]

That's me (Sy Borg 'at least tangential') I'm tangential in my response to most things.. a 'tangential search results' option that would suit me fine!

Another excellent thread. Interesting, not that I am paranoid or anything, but I always wonder if I am being manipulated by what I call the 'Evil World Brain' (suggest look up World Brain H.G. Wells) without realising..? I would like to further look more into quelling my suspicions. Maybe we could compare Google search trends where you are, on your current internet connected device (ensure browser history is cleared to prevent unwanted extraneous residual previous search 'data crumbs') I am seeing:

a = amazon uk - amazon - Argos - Asda Stores Limited - Arsenal F.C. - Aldi - Asos - Auto Trader Group - amazon prime - asda george

b = bbc news - bbc sport - Boris Johnson - bbc - Boots - B&Q - BBC Weather - bbc iplayer - Boohoo - bet365

c = Currys - Chelsea F.C. - CeX - calculator - coronavirus uk - Companies House - carabao cup - compare the market - Chris Wood

d = daily mail - Dunelm - Domino's - disney plus - Deliveroo - daily express - Novak Djokovic - daily mirror - Debenhams - Dune

e = ebay uk - eBay - Etsy - Eternals - Euro Car Parts - Euphoria - Eric Gill - EE - easy jet - etsy uk

f = Facebook - fse 100 - fb - footasylum - Formula 1 - facebook marketplace - favor - football on tv - Flannels - football today

G = gmail - Google - google translate - google maps - google classroom - guardian - google scholar - game - gov uk - gumtree

etc etc. (more to be added if anyone is curious/interested?)

In short, nothing I am remotely interested in, apart from Formula 1 (I do enjoy F1 racing ;O) ) - Google Scholar possibly sounds worth investigating.

What could we come across and discover by random possibly serendipitous or tangential search instead?

[Leontiskos]

Numerous commentators have noted that societal divisions are aggravated by the algorithms of social media, effectively pushing people into informational silos.

The algorithms, just as famously, are not programmed for the greater good, but greater profit...

I see a lot of people complain about this, but I don't see many coherent suggestions for improvements. After all, the "profit-driven" approach is not necessarily opposed to your desires. If you desire more randomness and active searching then those who desire profit should be open to giving you this if it keeps you using their products (and also because you will generate more clicks on their website than someone who desires a curated approach).

These are all different motives for crafting a user experience: profit, personalization, randomization, anti-siloing, etc. As always, the "greater good" is a highly debatable notion. My guess is that a truly randomized approach would not appeal to anyone, as the volume of content on the internet is enormous.

In a liberal society the user should probably be allowed some control over the algorithms used in their own experience. If I were to offer an concrete universal suggestion, it would be that algorithms attempt to mimic, at least to some extent, reality as we find it apart from technology. For example, if natural reality dictates that we must expend effort to achieve a goal, then algorithms should not try to create a passive, zero-effort experience.

[ernestm]

In a liberal society the user should probably be allowed some control over the algorithms used in their own experience. If I were to offer an concrete universal suggestion, it would be that algorithms attempt to mimic, at least to some extent, reality as we find it apart from technology. For example, if natural reality dictates that we must expend effort to achieve a goal, then algorithms should not try to create a passive, zero-effort experience.

Well I agree with your first sentence, but I dont quite understand your conclusion.

TV attempts to create a passive, zero-effort experience. When I worked on it, they talked about it as a 'sat back' experience, that is, inactive, as an explanation for the failure of such attempts to make it more active by adding links, etc, to live content, by Microsoft TV and its predecessor they bought which led to no fruition of its technology, WebTV.

At the time they talked about the failure because on computer devices people expect a 'sit forward' experience. That was before smartphones became so popular, but I had retired by then, so I dont know the current nomenclature.

I agree we should be allowed some control over the algorithms used to select that which we view on the Internet, but as social media is run by private companies, that interface is now called Google. lol. It's not as interactive as most people want. We can hope the current infatuation with having to say something stupid about everything having read a title or looked at a picture would go away, but due to people's lack of interest in anything deeper, as evidenced by the success of TV, it seems rather unlikely.

[Leontiskos]

Well I agree with your first sentence, but I dont quite understand your conclusion.

TV attempts to create a passive, zero-effort experience. When I worked on it, they talked about it as a 'sat back' experience, that is, inactive, as an explanation for the failure of such attempts to make it more active by adding links, etc, to live content, by Microsoft TV and its predecessor they bought which led to no fruition of its technology, WebTV.

At the time they talked about the failure because on computer devices people expect a 'sit forward' experience. That was before smartphones became so popular, but I had retired by then, so I dont know the current nomenclature.

I agree we should be allowed some control over the algorithms used to select that which we view on the Internet, but as social media is run by private companies, that interface is now called Google. lol. It's not as interactive as most people want. We can hope the current infatuation with having to say something stupid about everything having read a title or looked at a picture would go away, but due to people's lack of interest in anything deeper, as evidenced by the success of TV, it seems rather unlikely.

TV is largely that way, but is this a good thing? Such is the question. And yet even different TV channels have different levels of activity required. I am going to be more actively engaged by the deductive rigor of a Sherlock Holmes series than I am by Whoopi Goldberg's inferences on The View. TV producers can do things to avoid base, passive, propagandistic content if they so choose.

So then we arrive at other criteria for user experience: active, passive, catering to animal instincts, catering to specifically human or intellectual powers, etc.

[ernestm]

TV is largely that way, but is this a good thing?

I dont know how it can actually be relevant if it is good or not, as its just entertainment, and that's what people want. Especially in a liberal society. Can't say I like it any more than you, but that doesn't provide a grounds for control.

[Leontiskos]

TV is largely that way, but is this a good thing?

I dont know how it can actually be relevant if it is good or not, as its just entertainment, and that's what people want.

That's what they said about the Colosseum.

[Sy Borg]

I like the idea of allowing users to choose their algorithm/s, although I still think an element of randomisation as helpful, especially as it is cheap and it would reduce the intensity of ideological siloing. It's not just about exposing people to opposing views, but entirely different material. I, for one, would find that much more interesting.

Re: screen time. Societies are more crowded, with ever more strict rules of engagement, and many are chaotic, dirty, polluted. Some are dangerous. So the trend is for humans to spend more time indoors with their screens - be they passive or interactive - making media programming and social media algorithms ever more influential.

[Astro Cat]

Numerous commentators have noted that societal divisions are aggravated by the algorithms of social media, effectively pushing people into informational silos.

The algorithms, just as famously, are not programmed for the greater good, but greater profit. Ideally, a user would exercise creativity and actively search for information or entertainment. However, it's clear that automated feeds are deeply influential. An equivalent situation in nature would be the decision to take a nearby unripe fruit or to get up and go searching for a riper one. If a resource is readily on offer, most animals will simply take it, incurring an opportunity cost. It's the old truism played out, a bird in hand is worth two in the bush.

My own feeds, and others I have seen, strike me as tedious and repetitive. It's as though Taylorist specialisation infected the thinking of the programmers, as they tacitly encourage each "unit" to be limited and predictable, to prefer reassurance to exploration.

Early on, I enjoyed the random nature of YouTube recommendations. It could be just about anything. Now that the technology is more "intelligent", it dumbs us down, effectively absorbing our creativity and reflecting a pale version back at us.

So I would argue that societies would benefit from social media platforms re-introducing an element of randomness to all feeds, and that randomness would not be responsive to feedback. I would also recommend that it selects some content that is opposite, or at least tangential, to our usual choices.

Any thoughts?

The algorithms are really conducive to producing echo chambers, which really doesn't help when there are a lot of folks not willing to do their due diligence. I suspect it's a huge factor in the massive increase in mainstream disinformation and the rise in popularity of previously unthinkably silly conspiracy theories like Flat Earthism.

When what's presented is based on reaction and clicks above all else, it even becomes skewed for those who do their due diligence.

I'm reminded of a Youtube video I watched that went something like this:

(Person presenting social media algorithms to a person that's never seen them before): Here I'd like to show you this story about a group of kittens that was found and fostered.

(Target): Oh, that's nice.

(Presenter): Now, here's a story about a nice old lady that was attacked.

(Target): Oh my god! That's horrible!

(Presenter): Ah! I see you had a strong reaction to that one, much stronger than the kitten thing. So I learned a little bit about you, I'll show you a few more like this "old lady attacked" story now.

And so it goes for a while. I won't link it since I'm learning here, but you can Youtube "Showing Our Cool Stuff to Other Dimensions" for the full skit. It's both hilarious and poignant.