> "While social media connects people, most believe it has fueled societal divisions by creating echo chambers."
I think this issue of echo chambers exists because people become religious of their communities and refuse to listen to opinions of another communities - not because social media are flawed themselves.
You're basically saying "I believe the problem exists because of the way human nature interacts with social media, not social media themselves".
And sure, maybe it'd work for baboons, crows, or ants, if they ever evolved sufficient intelligence. But it doesn't for human.
Attributing personal blame for systemic issues is just silly. If it happens everywhere, it's not happening as a product of individual, malleable factors but because it's a natural consequence of the factors that add up to it.
But you're also using "social media" a shorthand for "algorithmic-based attention-maximizing recommendation machine". That's the current implementation of the bigger and most impactful social networks.
Networks that don't work with that model, tend to be much more wholesome. And they work.
Well these are messengers, not social media. The only social media platforms without algorithms I can think of are decentralized, i.e. what can be described as "fediverse".
On the contrary. Genetic and archeological evidence portrays humans as intermixing since the very beginning.
A survey by an online magazine is far, far from any evidence. Since it did not disclosed the methods, it is probably editorial.
The article is a cloaked ad for social AI that hooks on nostalgia for old internet times. It's useless.
Edit. They actually disclose it is an editorial ad:
> was commissioned by Verge editorial leadership, with surveys from Two Cents Insights. The Vox Media Insights and Research team surveyed over 2,000 US adults representing the US population in December 2024. Two Cents Insights is a boutique research agency that partners with brands and digital platforms to transform research into actionable insights. Its expertise lies at the intersection of consumer needs and business goals, fueling differentiated go-to-market strategies and customer-centric product development.
The algorithm of business development in the web era is A/B testing (and its cousin, multivariate testing). It is a still genetic algorithm, even though the "genome" of a website is not measured by base pairs of nucleic acids. And the algorithm is used to optimise the consumption of our mental resources — our attention is what it "metabolises" into money.
Facebook's attempt to broaden my social circles consists of showing me reels even though I keep clicking the button saying "don't show me reels", a list of people it thinks I might know but usually don't, and adverts every third post for things which are often not available in my country or for my gender.
--
Half the real content is promoted messages from groups such as "U.S. Naval Institue" and "KentLive".
The remaining posts are 80% from only one person I actually know, and their posts are mostly pro-Palesteine or blaming the Democrats for Trump.
I am a British citizen and live in Berlin.
--
I can definitely blame Facebook for giving me an experience on par with my attempt to run a phpBB forum in the late 2000s only to find it got no real users and a lot of spammers.
- "Cool! That was what everyone always wanted. Wait, what is that?"
- "Some yet to be defined role for AI, don't worry about it."
Please, stop forcing it guys. Let it grow naturally. I know you all want that sweet return of investment very soon in any way shape or form possible, but this is getting ridiculous.
Who are very hostile towards newcomers. One can easily imagine a sort of lepards island quarantine community, outside of the actual community , where all the bots, problematic people and social sellouts die a social death, while the honest enthusiasts after a year and a day are allowed in. No feeds, no algos on the inside, just people .
tldr; Public discussions carry too much risk if you discuss anything honestly, you get brigaded or doxed, or things are taken out of context or re-framed by someone based on their own biases of "what you really meant". So people have gone more towards sharing their views or having honest discussions in smaller more trusted groups.
the future of the internet is greater personal power and autonomy.....everyone will get there own personal web space, to write, create, sell, buy, and comunicate, they own it, it's "free"
one to one comunication will be protected in the same way that physical mail has been protected for centuries, ie: dont touch without a warrant
groups will have less and less privacy, the larger they are, and a crime by one, is a crime by all
ie: just dont do it, play nice, no conspiracy's or calls for insurection
platforms will die, unless they can attract and nurture tallent, that out competes all of the indipendents......which is very likely...as top performers, always need team support
It seems like the big tent entertainment projects bringing people from various echo chambers have ended temporarily. 2019 was the release of Avengers Endgame and Star Wars Episode 9. I don't think the subsequent releases in those franchises were nearly as good at bringing in a wide audience
> "While social media connects people, most believe it has fueled societal divisions by creating echo chambers."
I think this issue of echo chambers exists because people become religious of their communities and refuse to listen to opinions of another communities - not because social media are flawed themselves.
You're basically saying "I believe the problem exists because of the way human nature interacts with social media, not social media themselves".
And sure, maybe it'd work for baboons, crows, or ants, if they ever evolved sufficient intelligence. But it doesn't for human.
Attributing personal blame for systemic issues is just silly. If it happens everywhere, it's not happening as a product of individual, malleable factors but because it's a natural consequence of the factors that add up to it.
But you're also using "social media" a shorthand for "algorithmic-based attention-maximizing recommendation machine". That's the current implementation of the bigger and most impactful social networks.
Networks that don't work with that model, tend to be much more wholesome. And they work.
Messaging platforms like WhatsApp come to mind
Well these are messengers, not social media. The only social media platforms without algorithms I can think of are decentralized, i.e. what can be described as "fediverse".
All they did was point out humans have trended towards tribalism since… forever.
Social media has not remade our genome.
On the contrary. Genetic and archeological evidence portrays humans as intermixing since the very beginning.
A survey by an online magazine is far, far from any evidence. Since it did not disclosed the methods, it is probably editorial.
The article is a cloaked ad for social AI that hooks on nostalgia for old internet times. It's useless.
Edit. They actually disclose it is an editorial ad:
> was commissioned by Verge editorial leadership, with surveys from Two Cents Insights. The Vox Media Insights and Research team surveyed over 2,000 US adults representing the US population in December 2024. Two Cents Insights is a boutique research agency that partners with brands and digital platforms to transform research into actionable insights. Its expertise lies at the intersection of consumer needs and business goals, fueling differentiated go-to-market strategies and customer-centric product development.
The algorithm of business development in the web era is A/B testing (and its cousin, multivariate testing). It is a still genetic algorithm, even though the "genome" of a website is not measured by base pairs of nucleic acids. And the algorithm is used to optimise the consumption of our mental resources — our attention is what it "metabolises" into money.
Facebook's attempt to broaden my social circles consists of showing me reels even though I keep clicking the button saying "don't show me reels", a list of people it thinks I might know but usually don't, and adverts every third post for things which are often not available in my country or for my gender.
--
Half the real content is promoted messages from groups such as "U.S. Naval Institue" and "KentLive".
The remaining posts are 80% from only one person I actually know, and their posts are mostly pro-Palesteine or blaming the Democrats for Trump.
I am a British citizen and live in Berlin.
--
I can definitely blame Facebook for giving me an experience on par with my attempt to run a phpBB forum in the late 2000s only to find it got no real users and a lot of spammers.
- "We're bringing the old internet back."
- "Cool! That was what everyone always wanted. Wait, what is that?"
- "Some yet to be defined role for AI, don't worry about it."
Please, stop forcing it guys. Let it grow naturally. I know you all want that sweet return of investment very soon in any way shape or form possible, but this is getting ridiculous.
Who are very hostile towards newcomers. One can easily imagine a sort of lepards island quarantine community, outside of the actual community , where all the bots, problematic people and social sellouts die a social death, while the honest enthusiasts after a year and a day are allowed in. No feeds, no algos on the inside, just people .
Reminds me of this piece:
https://danielmiessler.com/blog/the-intellectual-dark-web-is...
tldr; Public discussions carry too much risk if you discuss anything honestly, you get brigaded or doxed, or things are taken out of context or re-framed by someone based on their own biases of "what you really meant". So people have gone more towards sharing their views or having honest discussions in smaller more trusted groups.
the future of the internet is greater personal power and autonomy.....everyone will get there own personal web space, to write, create, sell, buy, and comunicate, they own it, it's "free" one to one comunication will be protected in the same way that physical mail has been protected for centuries, ie: dont touch without a warrant groups will have less and less privacy, the larger they are, and a crime by one, is a crime by all ie: just dont do it, play nice, no conspiracy's or calls for insurection platforms will die, unless they can attract and nurture tallent, that out competes all of the indipendents......which is very likely...as top performers, always need team support
It seems like the big tent entertainment projects bringing people from various echo chambers have ended temporarily. 2019 was the release of Avengers Endgame and Star Wars Episode 9. I don't think the subsequent releases in those franchises were nearly as good at bringing in a wide audience