Respectfully, these examples- radio and TV aren't even in the same league as the manipulation and engagement that comes from the algorithmic feedback loop that backs these services. The comparison is dangerously dismissive.
As far as I've read, based on research around attention and focus behaviors, the context switching element of it is the most dangerous part in terms of developing ADHD type behaviors, and I agree that TV and radio doesn't even scratch the amount of switching that happens with modern social media. TikTok, Instagram, Facebook, Reddit, etc. All of them make you switch context every 30 seconds or less, often for hours on end. I think we're making the mistake of looking at these older technologies like TV and radio, thinking "we survived that, we'll survive this" and that is incredibly dangerous.
Dr Andrew Huberman, professor of neurobiology and ophthalmology at Stanford, does some excellent lecture-like podcasts on the subject that are well worth a listen.
Conventional broadcast media such as TV or radio can't get real-time feedback on the user's attention/preferences/behavior nor can it deliver uniquely-personalized content to each individual user. The "best" it could do is provide an average form of content that is likely to be appealing to the majority of their user base and would be subject to scrutiny as everyone can see what is broadcast.
In contrast, modern media not only knows much more about the user and their behavior but can fine-tune each individual expereince in real-time to maximize view time and "engagement" per-user without any oversight as it is impossible for a watchdog to see what each individual user is presented with. This is much more dangerous as the content can be fine-tuned based on each user's individual profile and weaknesses/addictions.
Surely TV and radio also have algorithms behind them determining how to increase viewership. Facebook and Instagram do the same but in realtime with more knobs to turn. I personally don't quite understand how somebody can get addicted to social media but I understand video games and I would support some kind of government bureau that determines the addictiveness of a game and puts a label on it.
For example games that are story driven, you play them for 15h and then you're done and there is no cliffhanger should get a very low addiction rating. You play them, you finish them, you liked it and then you can stop with no problem.
Then the addiction rating should get higher if there is more endless endgame content, more multiplayer content, boxes to purchase, etc.
You get the idea, if the industry is so determined to find the bliss point of a game/food item then the governments need to evolve with that challenge.
> Surely TV and radio also have algorithms behind them determining how to increase viewership
What do you mean by this? Until very recently, TVs and radios never had the ability to report feedback on what people were consuming or whether people were watching ads. There were some surveys like Nielsen ratings that involved a small sample of people installing special hardware. TVs and radios have never served personalized results to individuals, even if there were “algorithms” involved — the targeting was toward the entire population at once, not to each an every person viewing. For most of TV & radio history, the “algorithms” were people and not computers, people manually sifting through data for weeks just to see if a show was popular.
It’s pretty odd to suggest that TV & radio was historically similar to what’s going on with today’s social media. Serving personalized results and gathering instant personalized viewing habits (“engagement”) is what’s fundamentally different than TV & radio, the feedback cycle fundamentally changed from a slow group feedback to a fast individual feedback, and that’s precisely why social media is more engaging and more dangerous.
Yes absolutely TV and radio use algorithms to boost engagement. These are still dangerous, just less. The difference is the speed at which these sources collect and use information and the volume of data collected. It isn't just that these new mediums have more control, but that they can exercise the control in real-time.
With your video game idea, what's the difference between this and other software? Some social media seems like the game that never ends.
Chess is very addictive, and certainly endless. Same with cardgames. I'm sure your government bureau would quite grow fast, coming up with ever more warning labels.
You're getting downvoted for a perfectly reasonable question.
No we don't - because chess is a super-minority niche interest. The danger of social media is that it's social mass media - designed to be as addictive as possible to as many people as possible in as many different ways as possible using as many different techniques as possible.
And that's before getting into the dangers of targeted micro-niche ads used for political ends and/or individual belief and behaviour modification.
Without regulation it's an absolutely toxic medium.
But isn't chess one subset within that network, which would indeed be covered by any law regulating addictiveness of social media? Or will you allow people to be caught up on their own "otaku" like obsession with whatever niche area, but it is simply verboten to notify them of the existence of a different niche?
I also don't see how people can separate "optimizing addictiveness" (e.g. making your junk food too yummy or whatever) versus simply trying to make a better product that gives your customers what they want. The main criteria for who gets described in this way seems to be the corporate structure of the seller.
Novel reading, it was 'the womenfolk are spending their time with ~frivolous~ novels instead of caring for their children and reading the BIBLE as God intended', and bicycling was 'the womenfolk are wearing pants to cycle and traveling without a male escort! I say!'
No liking things. The Protestant work ethic demands no fun. Only anger and work. Play is of SATAN.
This is a fascinating argument. I like the perspective of a game like poker having greater similarity to true war than traditional war games like chess or go due to ever-increasing information. This adds another dimension to the game.
On the other hand, TV, radio, the printing press, and rock-and-roll music have all been called a "monumental change", "unlike anything before it", in the past.
An "unprecedented new thing" comes around every generation, and every time, there are fancy arguments touted about why this unprecedented new thing is unlike all the other "unprecedented new things" in the past.
For what it's worth, I'll say this: when I watch TV or a movie, it appears that the producers, writers, and set designers work hard to make sure that my attention is captured during every moment of the theatrical event. Movie studios perform A/B testing to see what kind of cinematic techniques are more engaging to audiences. Music studios use computer software to mathematically model what kind of music the masses will enjoy. Newspapers engage in yellow journalism.
All I am pleading for is a higher standard of proof and some contrarianism when people claim that whatever modern thing nowadays is unprecedented even among all the other unprecedented things of the past.
All this talk about "algorithmic feedback loops" is overselling the quality of said algos (eg. I get more interesting suggestions when I open YT incognito then I do when I'm signed in, I have to scroll through a bunch of stuff I have 0 interest on FB when I open it, etc.) and their importance.
It's completely missing the actual attention grabbing factor here - there's a huge amount of content for consumption on demand in those networks. Unlike TV or radio where at most you could have 100s of channels simultaneously available, there's billions of articles/videos/posts/songs/articles/etc. available with a few clicks.
I used to browse Instagram casually. Like, once is a blue moon. I would see updates from my network and spend a few mins here and there. This was probably like over year or two back. (not 100% sure)
And then a few months back I just could not take my eyes off of Instagram reels. This feature wasn't there before I think. I was just completely hooked. It was pretty interesting. I had to delete my instagram off of my phone.
They definitely are figuring out the formula to retain people's attention.
I go on Facebook about once a month. I’ve noticed that Facebook’s friend recommendation engine now sprinkles in some beautiful women, with whom I have no friends in common. I don’t know if someone tuned the algorithm this way, or if it tuned itself. It feels like the desperate move of a platform that realizes it’s losing control of someone.
Perhaps you just got lucky. Mine suggests tons of people from India and the middle east who I couldn't possibly know. I also check it very rarely. Presumably the algorithm must be picking the (very-slightly) best from many many low-probability guesses.
>And then a few months back I just could not take my eyes off of Instagram reels. This feature wasn't there before I think. I was just completely hooked. It was pretty interesting. I had to delete my instagram off of my phone.
Sounds like they started showing you different kind of content. I never got into Instagram because I'm just not into the kind of content that gets published there. Not arguing that content presentation isn't a factor here, but I would argue it's the content that's addicting and even if you remove the suggestion algorithms and just did social sharing/recommendations you'd still end up with similar results - viral stuff got shared in chats/groups/mail chains/etc. now it gets served up to your feed directly.
Not saying suggestion algorithms don't improve the experience if they work, but I wouldn't really attribute that much value to them, ultimately we have an industry of influencers trying to create content that will grab your attention.
I had the same experience - they’re incredibly addictive, far more than your standard Instagram.
I think this media is different because of the short duration of each item and the endless novelty. You say to yourself you you will just watch another YouTube video - it’s just a few minutes long and before you know it you’ve wasted half an hour. Where as with a TV programme you have to commit to 30-60 minutes.
It has the opposite effect on me, I barely open facebook anymore because of how irrelevant it is and I skip the landing page on YT and just search what I'm interested in.
This doesn't require algorithmic feedback loops. People simply would seek out (and create) content which provides inconsistent rewards. A slot machine simply needs a random number generator with a certain small chance of jackpot. The null model here is what can be achieved without individualization.
I'm not sure "randomness" is the general property, but rather unexpectedness. The content-provider may well be following a "formula" like with fiction plots, that give the protagonist setbacks and victories. Facebook uses approaches which try to profit within the constraints of a relatively small group of programmers trying to make money off billions of users. It doesn't mean these approaches are the best overall at serving the most desirable content to any given niche of users. Or even the best at making money qwithin those constraints. If are to believe in "network effects" (the other popular basis for calling for a breakup of Facebook) Facebook is simply succeeding because it is there first. Rather independent of this claim that they are winning by being the most competant.
Dono what's with your strawmen arguments here or what your point is besides being argumentative, but I didn't say anything about best. I'm gonna just assume they all see some value in it and you don't have any inside knowledge.
The point of the thread is that these algorithms are not a special new threat, but it's the availability of content itself, targetted or not.
Since we're analyzing each other's psychology now, I do think that insecure and defensive behavior like your post is a real problem with social media. I am not trying to bully or hurt you personally, but simply share some thoughts on a topic.
Have you tried TikTok? In my experience their algorithm is phenomenal, strikinga good balance between delivering extremely relevant content and trying new content you might like
I'm not sure how much that actually changes about the discussion, for the better.
If this is an addiction, then it will be one that's gonna be very difficult to break for most people.
In most places it's nowadays near impossible to go about your day without some kind of online activity or interaction. Especially as during this pandemic a lot of "in person" alternatives for it have been phased out of use.
So in practice the addicts are regularly forced to interact with their source of addiction. How are we supposed to fix that?
More transparency around algorithmically prioritized newsfeeds seem like an obvious place to start. According to what little insight we have they’re mostly prioritized for “engagement” which in some cases has intentionally come at the cost of people’s moods (according facebook’s own internal reporting).
Large companies have psychology/sociology experts working on this stuff in favor of the respective companies, but any consumer advocacy on the same level is hampered by lack of access and lack of funding.
Social media went from a communications platform where people could post content and subscribe to receive other people's content (in a chronological feed) into something where the social platform decides what content you receive (via the algorithmic feed) in order to benefit the platform by maximizing engagement and ad views.
Conventional newspapers did the same for decades and have been bound by some laws and regulations as a publisher. Social media should be bound by the same laws since they've long ago switched from a "neutral communications platform" model.
