I know exactly what you’re talking about and it has been driving me nuts for years. They constantly go up there and say “it’s cool we totally have these amazing algorithms that solve the problem,” then when they don’t solve the problem they just shrug and go “well we’re just so big you can’t actually expect us to do what we said we would. We’re doing decent enough!” YouTube is another great example of this.
Fine, be smaller. If I own 10,000 apartment buildings and one of them collapses killing dozens and injuring more, I don’t just get to shrug and go “sorry folks, it’s not reasonable for you to expect me to follow all the rules on all my properties. I’m too big.”
"oh, we get so much content that we can't possibly review it all" then don't accept anymore content from anyone?
Honestly, the fact that these companies are too big is a big big concern. We should have limited their size long ago and never accepted that bullshit excuse.
I would say they have these algorithms. They just know they can do it because literally nobody is forcing them not to. They buy politicians in US and it seems like EU fines are too small for them and even sparks and outrage of US policitcans when applied.
I surely hope so they end up like Standart oil. Broken down into small companies, because this monopol is absolutely net negative value for society.
The additional problem to this is that they guided the industry and their own platforms to actively generate that much content. No effort was made to naturally or organically slow the creation or even perform any sort of de-duplication. So whatever argument they use for "we're too big, their is just too much content" is directly on them.
Social media is a slot-machine essentially, and in order to do that they had to mobilize and incentivize entire industries to revolve around generating millenias-worth of content.
It's certainly a stretch to describe that as killing people. You can argue it's a an acceptable stretch, or that it's still very bad even if described more accurately, but it is plainly not what 'killing people' traditionally means
Yes, it is. Anything with a wide userbase that worsens or even just intensifies mood will lead to elevated suicide rates. If your boss picks someone else for the promotion and you kill yourself over it, your boss didn't kill you. If you're attracted to someone and they marry someone else and you respond similarly, same answer. If your instagram friends post pictures of their happy lives and it makes you feel bad, etc.
You can broaden the definition of 'killing people' to include 'elevating their risk of killing themselves', but then you have to shed the intuitions that are the sole purpose of using that kind of language in the first place. It's a rhetorical sleight of hand.
We have decades of research now showing concretely the harmful effects of social media, especially for people under 18. It is not debatable. It directly harms broader society and individuals yet we continue to have incredibly thin regulations that are barely enforced.
Help me out here. This has been happening to me a lot lately and I have to assume it's a failure to communicate on my part. I only intended to dispute that this should be called 'killing people'. I tried to indicate that I still think it's bad even if not described in that way.
Is there something that I said or failed to say that lead you to believe otherwise, or are you intending this reply as an argument that it should be called 'killing people' in a way I'm not understanding?
And here I thought the internet was about the free exchange of ideas and knowledge. And free will was the ability to choose to use social media or not.
I don’t know why you’re getting sarcastic with me. I also imagine you’re aware of the addiction element but if not I can send some studies/research along.
Social media companies have decades of work and billions of dollars of research to pull from. They use every single trick and tool they can to make it an addiction. The dialogue and shared strategies between them and the gambling industry is enough of a red flag on its own IMO.
It’s not a fair fight. Asking someone to just stop using social media can be like telling a gambling addict to just stop gambling. You’re also expecting teenagers to exhibit that self control.
And I’m not even getting into how critical it is to use social media if you run a business. Hell at some companies you’re required to participate in their social media presence. You can’t simply make it go away. You may as well tell people to just stop buying a phone or a computer.
I mean I work in tech. I’m 39. I’ve been on social media my entire life. At one point I was addicted. I cut social media down to 3 hours a week now I’ve taken years off in the past. I’ve also beaten alcohol addiction after the loss of my son. I’ve also quit gaming because I couldn’t balance it. Should we ban gaming? Should we ban marketing? Billboards? I see booze everywhere and yet no one is saying people with alcohol addictions are harmed by these ads.
I understand the psychology of marketing and what these companies do to exploit that.
At the end of the day if it’s about the kids. The parents should be educated at this point.
When I was a “tween” I was building CGI blogs and myspacing before moving from Perl to PHP; in high school you needed a college email address to sign up for Facebook so that didn’t come for until after I graduated high school in 2004.
Sure things have changed but I find if I pause and reflect daily and stay in the moment I don’t ever doom scroll or need social media.
Even now this comment is only being written bc I’m taking a poo.
Fine, be smaller. If I own 10,000 apartment buildings and one of them collapses killing dozens and injuring more, I don’t just get to shrug and go “sorry folks, it’s not reasonable for you to expect me to follow all the rules on all my properties. I’m too big.”