Remix.run Logo
Forgeties79 5 hours ago

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.”

zanellato19 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Yeah, this is bizarre that we just accepted.

"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.

tantalor 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Too big to succeed.

hsuduebc2 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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.

turtlesdown11 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

its the silicon valley way, just break the law if it might affect your business

morissette 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[flagged]

jobs_throwaway 4 hours ago | parent [-]

It's not a stretch to see a direct connection to mental health issues and suicide

ceejayoz 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Even less stretching:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rohingya_genocide

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook_content_management_co...

ToValueFunfetti 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

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

jobs_throwaway 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

"this product leads to elevated suicide rates among users" being equated to "this is killing people" is not a stretch

ToValueFunfetti 2 hours ago | parent [-]

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.

4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]
[deleted]
zo1 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

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.