Since Meta announced they would stop moderating posts much of the mainstream discussion surrounding social media has been centered on whether a platform has a responsibility or not for the content being posted on their service. Which I think is a fair discussion though I favor the side of less moderation in almost every instance.

But as I think about it the problem is not moderation at all: we had very little moderation in the early days of the internet and social media and yet people didn’t believe the nonsense they saw online, unlike nowadays were even official news platforms have reported on outright bullshit being made up on social media. To me the problem is the godamn algorithm that pushes people into bubbles that reinforce their correct or incorrect views; and I think anyone with two brain cells and an iota of understanding of how engagement algorithms works can see this. So why is the discussion about moderation and not about banning algorithms?

  • floofloof@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    18 hours ago

    How would you identify the kinds of algorithms that should be banned, as opposed to all the other kinds of algorithms? I have a feeling that would be tricky.

    • Plebcouncilman@sh.itjust.worksOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      18 hours ago

      The easy answer for me would be to ban algorithms that have the specific intent of maximizing user time spent on the app. I know that’s very hard to define legally. Maybe like I suggested below we can ban what kinds of signals algorithms can use to suggest and push content?

      • floofloof@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        17 hours ago

        To do it based on intent would create some difficult grey areas - for example, video game creators would have to try to make their games as compelling as possible without passing a more or less vague threshold and breaking the law. The second approach of working on the ways different types of data can be used sounds more promising.

        • Scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          17 hours ago

          Exactly. Even Meta and their thousands of lawyers would immediately say this. How does it harm people? Prove it does. Why are they singled out? They’re just showing content they think is relevant, and I’m guessing they honestly are. It’s that political groups take advantage of that, and make slop that enrages and inflames. But Meta would just say “you can’t punish us for trying to make our platform successful”. A mess all around

      • fuckwit_mcbumcrumble@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        17 hours ago

        ban algorithms that have the specific intent of maximizing user time spent on the app.

        That just means make the app shitty. You can optimize for engagement without just trying to make users angry. Making users angry at each other is just an extremely effective way to boost engagement.

        • Plebcouncilman@sh.itjust.worksOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          17 hours ago

          I dunno, old forums were fun as fuck and they had no algorithm beyond sorting by most popular, new etc. Hey if it makes people spend less time looking at their phone it is still a win in my book— I type as I spend hours on my tablet. I’m a hypocrite, won’t lie.