I meant “the algorithm”, that the parent comment mentions. Designing an algorithm that is driven by clickrate in order to gain more ad revenue is motivated by capitalistic forces.
I highly doubt a social network would ever lack incentive for increased engagement (via shock value and toxicity or otherwise) in a non-capitalist society.
They may gain popularity, societal influence, or whatever else instead of money. They’re still motivated to deepen that connection.
And I think that’s a lack of memory.
Where were those “algorithms” in flame wars on news groups, mailing lists, fora on the Internet & Web 1.0?
Even when the web became highly commercialized, there remained non-commercial sites of largely unmoderated, anonymized discussion & imageboards driven by the “hivemind”: where were “the algorithms” there?
It’s unrestrained people uninhibited from putting their unfiltered thoughts online to stir discussion: no “algorithms” required.
“The algorithms” steer even the least sophisticated users to the content that captures their attention.
And moderation maintains that attention by subduing those elements that would result in users ragequitting the Internet & missing those ads they scroll past.
Yes and no, the main factor are bubbles. Even for the most asshole opinions you can probably find the right bubble where you aren’t shunned for it but get affirming reactions. Algorithms do significantly ease the formation of bubbles but are ultimately not required for it
I still blame the algorithms. Angry people click more => let’s assure they always get more to click.
It’s the for profit corporate capture really. When everyone started thinking of the internet as 5 websites and their bank.
You’ve misspelled capitalism.
It’s a gray line, as the drive for celebrity isn’t strictly capitalist but is definitely rewarded under capitalism.
Anything bad == capitalism.
I meant “the algorithm”, that the parent comment mentions. Designing an algorithm that is driven by clickrate in order to gain more ad revenue is motivated by capitalistic forces.
I highly doubt a social network would ever lack incentive for increased engagement (via shock value and toxicity or otherwise) in a non-capitalist society.
They may gain popularity, societal influence, or whatever else instead of money. They’re still motivated to deepen that connection.
And I think that’s a lack of memory. Where were those “algorithms” in flame wars on news groups, mailing lists, fora on the Internet & Web 1.0?
Even when the web became highly commercialized, there remained non-commercial sites of largely unmoderated, anonymized discussion & imageboards driven by the “hivemind”: where were “the algorithms” there?
It’s unrestrained people uninhibited from putting their unfiltered thoughts online to stir discussion: no “algorithms” required. “The algorithms” steer even the least sophisticated users to the content that captures their attention. And moderation maintains that attention by subduing those elements that would result in users ragequitting the Internet & missing those ads they scroll past.
Maybe we need to bring back ragequitting?
Can we tackle the root cause (advertising) somehow?
If there’s no incentive to farm clicks, maybe the circlejerk could stop.
Yes and no, the main factor are bubbles. Even for the most asshole opinions you can probably find the right bubble where you aren’t shunned for it but get affirming reactions. Algorithms do significantly ease the formation of bubbles but are ultimately not required for it
im chill with algoithms as long as theyre FOSS and don’t manipulate people