Remix.run Logo
toss1 2 hours ago

If a social network has an ACTUAL straight chronological feed of only accts you follow, or lists you curate, that works great.

Somebody posts abhorrent Nazi racist crap, or lies about what is happening, you shut them off, and they'll never be heard by you again. Yes, you need to see/hear the crap or propaganda once for each Nazi or liar, but that's it.

The problem is nearly every social platform needs to increase your engagement get you to click or scroll just another time so they get to show you more adverts and make more money and claim more 'engagement' to juice their stock price. So along with having to listen to the advertisements, you ALSO are REQUIRED to see/listen to the crap and lies.

The good solution — "you don't have to listen" — is not an actual option in the real world.

(NB: This is why Section 230 should only protect web providers if they have no algorithm. Once they have an algo, they exercise more editorial control than any newspaper or broadcast editor — they ARE responsible for the content, not because they posted it, their users did, but because they routed it to you.)

raffael_de an hour ago | parent [-]

the context here is the fediverse and not social platforms based on financial incentives.