I’ve noticed the same thing and this creates such a negative user experience. Every short is a reaction test and if I fail, I get slop. Makes the whole experience very jarring (for better or for worse).
For better or worse with regards to my addiction, my subscriptions are all either science channels or high effort / high production comedy skits (e.g. DropoutTV). I still get slop, but I never subscribe and it mostly remains background noise
That’s the point though. It may seem as if you’re not in control when scrolling, but you can adjust your behavior to get the content you’re looking for almost intuitively. That’s actually something good in my honest opinion.
Why is it good that you need self control to not get slop? Its much better if you can just turn that off and relax rather than having to stay alert to avoid certain content that it tries to trick you to serve you more slop.
Distancing yourself from temptations is an effective and proven way to get rid of addictions, the programs constantly trying to get you to relapse is not a good feature. Like imagine a fridge that constantly puts in beer, that would be very bad for alcoholics and people would just say "just don't drink the beer?" even though this is a real problem with an easy fix.
Basically, I want to set boundaries in a healthy frame of mind, and have that default respected when my self control is lower because I’m tired, depressed, bored, etc.
It’s because content curation is inherently impossible to reach the same level of relevance as direct feedback from user behavior. You mix in all kinds of biases, commercial interests, ideology of the curator, etc, and you inevitably get irrelevant slop. The algorithm puts you in control a little bit more.
> The algorithm puts you in control a little bit more.
Why not let you choose to get a less addictive algorithm? Older algorithms were less addictive, so its not at all impossible to do this, many users would want this.
And that is why these algorithms needs to be regulated. People don't want to pick the algorithm that makes them spend the most time possible on their phones, many would want an algorithm that optimizes for quality rather than quantity on the app so they get more time to do other things. But corporations doesn't want to provide that because they don't earn anything from it.
I have YouTube Premium. They should be doing the opposite. Getting me off the platform as quickly as possible so they get to keep a bigger cut of my fixed payment.
I just don’t think that the addiction is exclusively due to the algorithm. There’s really a lack of affordable varied options for learning trade and entertainment. We say in Portuguese: You shouldn’t throw the baby away along with the water you used to bathe.
I don't see any harm that could come from saying "a less addictive algorithm needs to be available to users"? For example, lets say there is an option to only recommend videos from channels you subscribe to, that would be much less addictive, why isn't that an option? A regulation that forces these companies to add such a feature would only make the world a better place.
>I don't see any harm that could come from saying "a less addictive algorithm needs to be available to users"?
consider air travel in the present day. ticketing at essentially all airlines breaks down as: premium tickets that are dramatically expensive but offer comfortable seats, and economy tickets that are cramped and seem to impose new indignities every new season. what could be the harm from legislation that would change that menu?
the harm would be fewer people able to travel, fewer young people taking their first trip to experiencing the other side of the world, fewer families visiting grandma, etc.
As much as people hate the air travel experience, the tickets get snapped up, and most of them strictly on the basis of price, and next most taking into account nonstops. This gives us a gauge as to how much people hate air travel: they don't.
this doesn't mean airlines should have no regulation, it doesn't mean monopoly practices are not harmful to happiness, it doesn't mean that addictions don't drive people to make bad choices, it doesn't mean a lot of things.
I'm just trying to get you to see that subtle but significant harm to human thriving can easily come from regulations.
I agree, but what would be the actual mechanism that would allow that? I believe we’re out of ideas. TikTok’s crime was just be firmly successful because of good engineering. There’s no evil sauce apart from promotional content and occasional manipulation, which has nothing to do with the algorithm per se.
And about whitelisting, I honestly don’t think you’re comparing apples to apples. The point of the algorithm is dynamically recommending new content. It’s about discovery.
> I agree, but what would be the actual mechanism that would allow that?
Governments saying "if you are a social content platform with more than XX million users you have to provide these options on recommendation algorithms: X Y Z". It is that easy.
> And about whitelisting, I honestly don’t think you’re comparing apples to apples. The point of the algorithm is dynamically recommending new content. It’s about discovery.
And some people want to turn off that pushed discovery and just get recommended videos from a set of channels that they subscribed to. They still want to watch some tiktok videos, they just don't want the algorithm to try to push bad content on them.
You are right that you can't avoid such algorithm when searching for new content, but I don't see why it has to be there in content it pushes onto you without you asking for new content.
I don’t agree tbh. This is part of how people wind up down extremist rabbit holes. If you’re just lazily scrolling it can easily trap you in its gravity well.
But you can get into extremist rabbit holes independently of control surface. Remember 4chan? Dangerous content is a matter of moderation regardless of interfacing.
4chan has a lot less extremism than people imagine, rspecially compared to platforms like Instagram or Facebook. It's mostly concentrated on certain boards. The reputation of being extremist did more 'in favour' of its extremism than the original userbase and design ever did.
4chan is only outdone by 8chan. “It’s only concentrated on certain boards” is the same lame excuse Reddit used to ignore /r/thedonald and now /r/conservative.
4chan doesn't use algorithms to push users to certain boards afaik, makes it better than the others in its design. I'm not arguing 4chan is great but it's not nearly as impactful as Facebook, Twitter or TikTok in creating extremism.
Facebook and Twitter are far worse sources of extremism. There are entire groups dedicated to genetic comparisons between races, 'who would you do' groups that do nothing but photos of young women in bikinis farmed FROM facebook/ig.
4chan is where you go too far. 4chan users typically don't foster extremism, they are the extreme. They don't post pictures of young women, they post addresses and walkthroughs of their apartments.
Yes, I feel like it's far less harmful than the other sites for this reason. These bad parts of 4chan aren't the majority of the site either, a large minority maybe, but the site in general is much smaller. Users are also attracted to the image of 'extremism', 4chan in the far past didn't have this as its main audience of newcomers in its early stages.
It's easy to control for governments compared to facebook/reddit/... because it's just some boards, way better than massive amounts of posts creating a personal zone for everyone.
>I'm not arguing 4chan is great but it's not nearly as impactful as Facebook, Twitter or TikTok in creating extremism.
4chan has /pol/. 4chan inspired Gamergate, Pizzagate, QAnon and numerous incidents of extremist violence. Those other platforms mostly just spread and accelerate the toxic culture that originated on 4chan.
I'm not sure if most of 4chan was actually so on board with the whole gamergate thing and all the things which followed. pre-/pol/ 4chan was a whole different thing. It was outsiders joining 4chan which did most of the posting, twitter and facebook were the ones which allowed this to happen.
Internet starting with a 1000 4chans wouldn't create what we have today (you'll just get lots of small fringe groups), internet starting with a 1000 facebooks/twitters/... will always end in extremism of a big portion of the population.
And — this is really shocking — Jeffrey Epstein caused /pol/ to exist, which makes him indirectly responsible for almost all stupid internet politics of the last decade.
I try to react as “violently” as possible to any slop and low-quality crap (e.g. stupid “life hacks” purposely bad to ragebait the comments). On YouTube it’s called “Don’t recommend this channel” and on Facebook it’s multiple taps but you can “Hide All From…”
Basically, I don’t trust that thumbs down is sufficient. It is of course silly, since there are no doubt millions of bad channels and I probably can’t mute them all.
At the risk of going off on a tangent about that maxim; I feel like it's just misusing the word "purpose".
Maybe it would be cleaner to state that a system has no purpose (at least not until it is sentient), instead it has behaviors. Then one can observe that the purpose of the designers or maintainers of a system simply happens to be at odds (or as AI safety researchers would say, are "out of alignment with") the behavior of the system.
That all of course presupposes that one can accurately deduce the purposes of the designers/maintainers.. In the case of TikTok, I'd bet that we are all in agreement that their purpose is nothing more nor less than maximal value-extraction from people wishing to express themselves with videos multiplied against an audience of people who wish to view videos multiplied again against advertisers who want to insert propaganda into eyeballs.
