A lot of talk goes into how Facebook or other social media use algorithms to encourage engagement, that often includes outrage type content, fake news, rabbit holes and so on.
But here's the thing ... people CHOOSE to engage with that, and users even produce that content for social media platforms for free.
It's hard to escape that part.
I remember trying Bluesky and while I liked it better than Twitter, for me it was disappointing that it was just Twitter, but different. Outlandish short posts, same lame jokes / pithy appeals to our emotions, and so on. People on there want to behave the same way they wanted to on Twitter.
> But here's the thing ... people CHOOSE to engage
Kinda, but they also don't really realise that they have much more control over the feed than they expect (in certain areas)
For the reel/tiktok/foryou-instagram feeds, it shows you subjects that you engage with. It will a/b other subjects that similar people engage with. Thats all its doing. continual a/b to see if you like what ever flavour of bullshit is popular.
Most people don't realise that you can banish posts from your feeds by doing a long press "I don't like this" equivalent. It takes a few times for the machine to work out if its an account, groups of accounts of theme that you don't like, and it'll stop showing it to you. (threads for example took a very long time to stop showing me fucking sports.)
Why don't more people know this? because it hurts short term metrics for what ever bollocks the devs are working on. so its not that well advertised. just think how unsuccessful the experiments in the facebook app would have been if you were able to block the "other posts we think you might like" experiments. How sad Zuckerberg would be that his assertion was actually bollocks?
There's definitely a mass of people who can't/won't/don't get past passive/least-effort relationships with things on screens. These would be the type that in the TV days would simply leave the TV on a specific channel all day and just watch whatever was on, and probably haven't changed their car radio dial from the station they set it to when they bought the car. In modern times they probably have their cable TV they still pay for on a 24 hour news channel and simply have that going all day.
To be fair, in times far past, you really didn't have much choice in TV or radio channels, and I suspect it's this demographic that tend to just scroll down Facebook and take what it gives without much thought other than pressing Like on stuff.
Yup. Knowing the exact percentage of those people would be hurtful to my soul I think, but I suspect they drive a meaningful percentage of business. Like that time when Netflix displayed shows on, because some people couldn't be bothered to actually choose something to watch ?
Transparency would prove or disprove this. Release the algorithm and let us decide for ourselves. In my experience, Instagram made an algorithm change 3-4 years ago. It used to be that my feed was exactly my interests. Then overnight my feed changed. It became a mix of 1. interracial relationship success stories 2. scantily clad women clickbait, 3. east asian "craft project" clickbait, and just general clickbait. It felt as if "here's what other people like you are clicking on" became part of the algorithm.
Maybe the TikTok algorithm is better, but the "I don't like this" action on Meta properties just blatantly does not work. I still get the same type of clickbait content no matter how many times I try to get rid of it. Maybe watching other types of Reels would do it, but no thanks.
on facebook, yes, for many stupid reasons. It doesn't have a "I don't like this" function on most stuff. and there are no controls for stopping "non friend" content injection in the feed.
In instagram, its very different.
First there is "snooze suggested content" which gives you a pure follow feed.
However once you reach the end of that and go into the "for you" feed, which has one "personality". Then there is the explore page, which has another "personality"
The new reels carousel stuff I think is possibly another personality.
So there are now three places where you need to yeet stuff you don't like.
I noticed that when the reels carousel was introduced they went heavy into thirst traps.
But again, this is a regulation issue. If this was the 1980s, there would be a moral panic causing something like the v-chip to stop "the youth" getting access to soft porn (not that it worked that well) Now it'll be a executive fatwa, which'll be reversed when he gets distracted by something else.
Personally I really enjoy Mastodon and Bluesky but I am very deliberate at avoiding negative people, I do not follow and often mute or block “diss abled” people who complain about everything or people who think I make their life awful because I am cisgender or who post 10 articles an hour about political outrage. The discover page on Bluesky is algorithmic and respects the “less like this” button and last time I looked has 75% less outrage than the following page. (A dislike button that works is a human right in social media!)
Once I get my database library reworked, a project I have in the queue is a classifier which filters out negative people so I can speed follow and not add a bunch of negativity to my feed, this way I get to enjoy real gems like
FWIW, I've been consistently posting quality stuff on Bluesky for the last year, and despite having a few hundred followers, I get ZERO engagement.
People in the Bluesky subreddit tell me it's not a "post and ghost" platform in that you have to constantly interact with people if you want to earn engagement, but that's too time consuming.
In other words, the discovery algorithm(s) on BlueSky sucks.
Maybe it doesn't suck. Others are just better at posting discoverable content than you. (note: "discoverable" =/= "engaging")
If we believe the discoverability algorithms to avoid "engagement" is respected, who would be more discoverable? The person coming in to show off one high quality article every 6 months, or the person doing weekly blogs with some nuggets of information on the same topic?
Maybe your article goes viral, but odds are that the weekly blogger will amass more followers, have more comments, and will build up to a point where they 99% of the time get more buzz on their updates than the one hit wonder.
It's just Twitter 2. It's the same as Twitter, made by the same people who made Twitter, doing the same thing as Twitter in the same way as Twitter, with the same culture as Twitter, plus a fig leaf to decentralisation.
What gets me about some platform is all the text-in-images and video with senseless motion. I've been dipping my toes into just about any social where I could possibly promote my photography and the worst of them all is Instagram where all the senseless motion drives me crazy.
brains are wired that way. Gossip and rage bait is not something that people actively decide for, it's subconscious. It's weird saying that this is the problem of individuals - propaganda is effective not because people are choosing to believe it.
Right. When we're talking about the scale of humanity itself, we've moved far past individual actions.
At the scale we're operating, if only 1% is susceptible to these algorithms, that's enough to translate to noticeable social issues and second-order effects.
Current social media have basically found the "bliss point" of online engagement to generate revenue and keep the eyes attached. These companies found a way to keep people hooked, and strong emotions seem to be a major tool.
It really isn't a choice. It is very accessible. Many friends are on social networks and you slowly get sucked into shorts. Then, it becomes an addiction as your brain crave the dopamine hits.
In the same was a smoker "chooses" to engage with cigarettes. Let's not underestimate the fact that core human programming is being exploited to enable such behavior. Similar to telling a smoker to "just out the cigsreet down", we can't just suddenly tell people in social media to "stop being angry".
>people on [BlueSky] want to behave the same way they wanted to on Twitter.
Yes. Changing established habits is even harder to address. You can't make a horse drink (I'm sure anyone who ever had to deal with a disengaged captive audience feels this in their souls). Whike it's become many peoples primary "news source", aka the bread, most people came there for the circus.
I don't really have an answer here. Society needs to understand social media addiction the same way they understand sugar addictions; have it slammed in there that it's not healthy and to use sparingly. That's not something you can fix with laws and regulation. Not something you fix in even a decade.
Technically correct, but choice is here very simplified. The system is unable to understand WHY people engage with something, and in which way. That's poisoning the pool, and enforcing certain content and types of presentation.
> while I liked it better than Twitter, for me it was disappointing that it was just Twitter, but different
I feel exactly the same way.
I think there needs to be a kind of paradigm shift into something different, probably something that people in general don't have a good schema for right now.
Probably something decentralized or federated is necessary in my opinion, something in between email and twitter or reddit? But there's always these chicken and egg issues with adoption, who are early adopters, how that affects adoption, genuine UX-type issues etc.
> Probably something decentralized or federated is necessary in my opinion, something in between email and twitter or reddit?
So, Usenet? The medium is the message and all that, sure, but unless you change where the message originates you are ultimately going to still end up in the same place.
Sounds like a return to old school, long term forums. They still exist, but there's a reason Reddit and Twitter took over the "forum space". They toom the core ideas and injected it with "engagement". In this case, with the voting system of reddit, and the follower system of Twitter. Gamefying the act of interacting with peope had effects beyond anyone's comprehension in 2007
But here's the thing ... people CHOOSE to engage with that, and users even produce that content for social media platforms for free.
It's hard to escape that part.
I remember trying Bluesky and while I liked it better than Twitter, for me it was disappointing that it was just Twitter, but different. Outlandish short posts, same lame jokes / pithy appeals to our emotions, and so on. People on there want to behave the same way they wanted to on Twitter.