Remix.run Logo
Onavo 18 hours ago

The second camp is just artificially creating echo chambers, a virtual "separate and distinct network" for the parts that matter.

the_snooze 18 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The "echo chamber" argument really doesn't speak to me because all I want is a place where I can get timely updates about: people in my research field, pictures of cute dogs, and municipal government activities. The more a website stays laser-focused on my interests, the better.

cosmic_cheese 18 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I think those things you’ve mentioned are what most people came to social media for originally, but it’s gotten lost in all the noise. The original point of social networks was to be social and connect with people in your industry or who share your interests or share a locality in common, and X especially has drifted far from that ideal — lots of users now log onto it to find something/somebody to be angry at and to argue/troll.

mingus88 18 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I’m still using an RSS reader for that very purpose. I want my trusted content displayed chronologically; miss me with the algorithm and the recommended influencers. I’ve been on the internet long enough to know what I want and how to find it.

AlienRobot 16 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I share the sentiment.

It seems some people got on the internet to argue and never learned to enjoy anything. I'm a bit sorry for them, to be honest.

hooverd 13 hours ago | parent [-]

It's kind of alarming, not that I'm not guilty of it, but you do see people whose entire online presence is just stuffing their face with negative interactions.

hooverd 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

HackerNews is an echo chamber. You're not even allowed to call people f*ggots or speculate about the Jews here!

mgraybosch 17 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]

derbOac 18 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

That makes a lot of assumptions about the nature of the content provided by the recommendation algorithms, as well as human nature. A good recommendation engine, for example, would recognize when someone either likes a broad range of sources politically speaking, or likes a neutral region.

Conversely, it's unclear that a recommendation engine would be able to predict what would be best at "disrupting an echo chamber", and more importantly, when that is desirable, and what "desirable" even means. It's also unclear that the first model is successful at all in disrupting echo chambers, as opposed to exacerbating or amplifying existing positions. I think there's good reasons to think that provocative can be less effective if anything.

spamizbad 18 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I disagree with this: if the only thing you allow to pierce the veil is selected based on engagement metrics you just walk away with a shallow view of your opposition. If anything this may entrench your existing views and give you a false sense of intellectual and/or moral superiority.

You need to “meet people where they are” and the first type of algorithm just doesn’t do that. It just says “conservatives/liberals really like this, so you’re going to be forced to see this too because you show interest in politics”

To give an example: let’s say I’m a small business owner who voted Trump but has some lingering concerns around how tariffs might impact my business. Am I going to be better informed reading some engagement-bait post from liberals talking about how I’m going to get “deservedly” crushed by tariffs or a post from a conservative economist laying out the cold hard facts (both good and bad)?

Onavo 18 hours ago | parent [-]

Your argument is in support of mine. Separate networks are an interesting legal and software engineering detail, but from the POV of the user, as long as they see what they want to see, they will stay with the network.

spamizbad 18 hours ago | parent [-]

Ah you’re right.