Technology

35248 readers

523 users here now

This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.

Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.

Rules:

1: All Lemmy rules apply

2: Do not post low effort posts

3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff

4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.

5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)

6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist

7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

MinutePhrase@lemmy.ml

Why are we not banning algorithms? (sh.itjust.works)

submitted 1 day ago by Plebcouncilman@sh.itjust.works to c/technology@lemmy.ml

30 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] n2burns@lemmy.ca 7 points 22 hours ago

I think you're making a lot of assumptions here, many of which I have contentions with.

we had very little moderation in the early days of the internet and social media

It differed from site to site, but in my experience of the Internet in the '90s and '00s, a lot of forums were heavily moderated, and even Facebook was kept pretty clean when I got on it in ~2006/2007.

and yet people didn’t believe the nonsense they saw online,

I fully dispute this. People have always believed hearsay. They're just exposed to more of it through the web instead of it coming verbally from your family, friends, and coworkers.

unlike nowadays were even official news platforms have reported on outright bullshit being made up on social media.

We live in a world of 24-hour news cycles and sensationalization, which has escalated over the past few decades. This often encourages ratings over quality.
Mainstream media has always had problems with fact-check. I'm not trying to attack the news media or anything, I think most reporters do their best and strive to be factual, but they sometimes make mistakes. I can't remember the name of it, but I there's some sort of phenomenon where if you watch a news broadcast, and they talk about a subject you have expertise in, you're likely to find inaccuracies in it, and be more skeptical of the rest of the broadcast.

To me the problem is the godamn algorithm that pushes people into bubbles that reinforce their correct or incorrect views

Polarization is not limited to social media. The news media has become more and more tribal over time. Company that sell products and services have been more likely to present a political world-view.

Overall, I think you're ignoring a lot of other things that have changed over the years. It's not like the only thing that has changed in the world is the algorithmic feed. We are perpetually online now and that's where most people get their news, so it's only natural that would also be their source of disinformation. I think algorithmic feeds that push people into their bubbles is a response to this polarization, not the source of it.