Meta and TikTok let harmful content rise to drove engagement, say whistleblowers
bbc.com128 points by 1vuio0pswjnm7 3 hours ago
128 points by 1vuio0pswjnm7 3 hours ago
I feel like this is general knowledge for the past 5 or so years, but the real question is "What do we do about it?". Personally, I put real effort into not spending time being outraged online, but this is a societal ill that's bigger then I am...
"What do we do about it?"
Shut down the behavior with regulations or shut down the companies. Meta and TikTok have no natural right to exist if they are a net negative to society.
Specifically, I believe Section 230 protections shouldn't apply to algorithmicly promoted content. TikTok hosting my video isn't inherently an endorsement of what I'm saying, but proactively pushing that video to people is functionally equivalent even if you want to quible over dictionary definitions. These algorithms take these platforms from dumb content-agnostic pipes that deserve protections to editorial enterprises that should bear responsibility for what they promote.
How would you square that with a site like Hacker News, which has algorithms for showing user-submitted links and user-generated comments?
Listing content alphabetically or chronologically is technically an "algorithm" too. What I'm specifically challenging here is the personalized algorithm designed to keep individual users on the platform based off a user profile influenced by countless active and passive choices the user has made over time. The type of HN algorithm that serves the same content to every user based off global behavior is fine in my book because it is both less exploitative of the user base and a reflection of that user base's proactive decisions in upvoting/downvoting content.
Regulating content that makes people enraged seems like a slippery slide towards regulating any kind of "unwanted" speech. I get regulating CSAM, calls for violence or really obvious bullying (serious ones like "kill yourself" to a kid), but regulating algorithms that show rage bait leaves a lot of judgement to the regulators. Obviously I don't trust TikTok or Meta at all, but I don't trust the current or the future governments with this much power.
For example, some teen got radicalized with racist and sexist content. That's bad in my opinion, as I'm not a racist or a sexist. But should racist or sexist speech be censored or regulated? On what grounds? How do we know other unpopular (now or in the future) speech won't be censored or regulated in the future? Again, as much as I'm not a racist or sexist, I don't think the government should have a say in whether a company should be able to promote speech like "whites/blacks are X" or "men/women are Y". What's next? Should we regulate speech about religion (Christians/Muslims/atheists are Z) or ethics (anti-war people or vegans are Q) or politics or drugs or sex?
The current situation is shitty, but giving too much power to regulators will likely make it way shittier. If not now, in the future, since passed regulations are rarely removed.
At least in the US the government can't regulate speech (for the most part). But what we could do is regulate recommendation algorithms or other aspects of the overall design in a way that's generalized enough to be neutral in regards to any particular speech. And such regulations don't need to apply to any entity below some MAU or other metric.
Even just mandating interoperability would likely do since that would open up the floor to competitors. Many users are well aware of the issues but don't feel they have a viable alternative that satisfies their goals.
oddly enough the TikTok referred to here was to be shut down in the US. But then the executive branch ignored the law while it could organize handing the company over to Larry Ellison instead. But these allegations date to when the company was fully under the control of ByteDance, and not US-regulated entities at all.
> oddly enough the TikTok referred to here was to be shut down in the US. But then the executive branch ignored the law while it could organize handing the company over to Larry Ellison instead
Which should make people think twice when they call for government regulation on speech as a solution to content they don't want other people to see.
The more you give the government power to control speech, the more they'll use those laws to further their own interests.
regulation will never happen because these are instruments to control the masses
All the more reason for regulation. If people catch on to the fact that they are being manipulated and abused by the platforms to "drive engagement" they might abandon them or spend less time on them. If the government regulates these platforms so that they are safer or at least less harmful people will feel better about using them giving the government a larger platform to use to control the masses.
> If people catch on to the fact that they are being manipulated and abused by the platforms
I am not trying to be funny or anything but this sounds like "if only fat kid realized that eating 10 apple pies before bedtime might be the reason s/he is fat" We already know what social media platforms are doing, not to just young people but to all people.
> If the government regulates these platforms
This is like saying "congressman care about our debt so they will vote to reduce their own salaries by 90%" - the government is not going to regulate tools they are using to control the narrative/masses etc...
"Make the drug less good" likely isn't the answer. Nor is banning it.
What caused Gen Z to drink less than millenials? Maybe Gen Z has the answer.
You're only allowed to drink as an adult. We're talking about letting those companies rot our brains in those first 18 years.
In my experience the 60+ demographic have had far more damage done.
We just haven't seen what 60 year old ipad kids look like yet. It's not going to be pretty
yeah, it's called "smoking weed".
Technology, culture, legalization of pot, adtech, covid, there are a metric ton of factors that all had significant impact on both decreasing socialization and reduction in drinking. And lowering the birth rates, and the number of healthy relationships, healthy friendships, etc.
I'm for legalizing all drugs, regulating the sale, ensuring quality and purity, and educating the public. Cognitive liberty is sacred - but the dip in drinking has a whole lot of causes.
A healthier society would be more social and get out and drink more, I think.
Decades of science communication and real life examples of knowing (of) alcohol addicts
Real life experience with alcoholics would at-best be constant over time, or be diminishing (since gen Z drinks less).
Also seems like the science on whether science communication actual changes behavior doesn't point towards it being much of a cause here.
I'd wager how expensive it has gotten plus a year or two of lockdowns which lead to a whole generation of people not going out to get wasted as soon as they're legally allowed to had way more effect.
Oh, and weed being increasingly legal to consume.
The people who were voted to power (across the globe, not just the US) to do something about it are stuck getting their dopamine kicks posting garbage on the same platforms. It’s truly a terrible timeline we are in.
Regulate it. Laws, consequences, etc.
Laws appear to have fallen out of fashion. And a disturbing proportion of the loudest people like it. Then you have those who ought to know better but are attention-seeking, selfish assholes who somehow find it «interesting» or think they adhere to «principles».
The latter category know who you are. You downvoted this comment.
> Laws appear to have fallen out of fashion.
Laws are very much fashionable, but only for us. “Rules for thee but not for me” is what's in season right now.
I recently provided guidance to state legislators, with that guidance making its way into law in regards of balcony solar. If you don’t think that making law works, I would encourage you to get involved somewhere that means something to you.
It turns out that if you present as an honest, non-interested party, people will call you and ask you for your advice. I do admit that the ease of this is going to be a function of the people you are up against and the subject being regulated. My point of this comment is: default to action. “You can just do things.”
It’s like asking how do you get people to stop drinking alcohol
As long as there are people who don’t acknowledge or care about the health effects it will exist. If that’s a plurality of your population then you have a fundamental population problem IF you are in the group who thinks it’s bad.
Aka every minority-majority split on every issue ever.
So the answer is: live in a society governed by science. Unfortunately none exist
> So the answer is: live in a society governed by science. Unfortunately none exist
Science is a lagging indicator of reality. It is by definition conservative (in that it requires rigorous, repeatable data before it can label something as true). Because of that, there's usually a pretty substantial gap between human discovery and scientific consensus.
Mindfulness was discovered, as an example, to be beneficial as far back as 500 BCE. It wasn't "proven" with science until 1979.
Sometimes we just need to rely on lived experience to make important decisions, especially regulation. We can't always wait for science.
We handled smoking pretty well by making it cost more and banning it in public places. If tiktok was banned from official app stores it would essentially go away.
Social media addiction is much deeper than nicotine addiction. And people still smoke, see Phillip Morris stock and earnings :)
I don't think deeper is the right word. Nicotine has a physical addiction element that social media does not. You cut off social media, you at worse face some boredom and FOMO.
And PM's earnings are mostly from developing countries at this point. In the US alone, the adult smoking rate has fallen nearly 73% from 1965 to now, so clearly the regulations are working.
We need to do the same for social media. People didn't quit smoking because they suddenly got more disciplined. We just made it inconvenient. The biggest start would be get rid of algorithmic feeds and "recommendations" keep it purely chronological, only from people you explicitly follow.
Nitpicking maybe, but nicotine isn't the main thing that makes cigarettes addictive and it's not that bad by itself. Gwern has a long article on nicotine that's worth a read [0].
More importantly, why do you think society should make smoking inconvenient - more costly, more illegal or anything like that? If I'm not blowing smoke in your face, why interfere with my desire to smoke? If it's about medical bills, just let me sign a waiver that I won't get cancer treatments or whatever, and let me buy a pack of smokes for what it should cost - a few cents per pack, not a few dollars/euro.
If I can smell it, I don't really care if you're blowing it directly at me or not, it's still a pain. If you want to smoke in private in your own home and then wash your clothes after so no one can tell you're doing it, I guess that's fine, but I don't see why it also has to be cheap?
I think it's also partially due to smoking being more and more considered disgusting, not just inconvenient. The peer pressure of "don't do this very stinky disgusting thing around me" must have at least a little to do with declining smoking rates. Back in the 80s, most people didn't have the guts to say "Hey, don't smoke around me, it's gross!" but plenty of people do today.
We need to culturally consider Social Media use to be disgusting or at least something to be ashamed of.
I drink, but I acknowledge and care about the health effects. I care more about how it makes me feel. Don't assume everyone who smokes or drinks alcohol or takes another type of drug just doesn't care. Why don't we ban dangerous sports like rock climbing or BASE jumping or MMA while we're at it?
It's like how do you get people to stop letting their kids drink alcohol.
Everyone knows what the dangers of alcohol are now. We need to get reliable data one can base policy on and then let the public health system do their thing. Maybe not every health authority but enough of them to protect the species at large. Then we'll get social media out of schools, away from young people, vulnerable folks, etc.
>"What do we do about it?"
nothing. if it isn't illegal, it isn't illegal.
previous generations of neurotics objected to many current (at the time) things we don't bat an eye about. when was the last time you saw anyone campaign against satanic music, violent video games, or hardcore pornography?
You in the 90s: "Leaded fuel isn't illegal guys, stop your campaigning, let's keep huffing it"
How about coming up with an actual defense of social media rather than an ad hominem about "neurotics"?
I wonder where folks like this came from, and at what point did people who associate themselves with hacker culture decide that censorship is great.
The OG hackers thought of censorship as network damage that needed to be routed around.
People who support censorship always think of themselves as smarter than the rest. Dunning-Krueger however would suggest something different.
>You in the 90s: "Leaded fuel isn't illegal guys, stop your campaigning, let's keep huffing it"
people who raised alarm about such things could easily be branded as conspiracy theorists. even now, at this very website, so full of well-educated folx, people who speak out against xenoestrogens, for example, are being downvoted to hell.
Nothing is inherently illegal. Laws are created in response to an undesireable outcome - murder wasn't illegal until it was made illegal.
> >"What do we do about it?"
> nothing. if it isn't illegal, it isn't illegal.
Are you suggesting that because something isn't illegal, it shouldn't be illegal?
Are you perhaps a representative of the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory?
I'm not suggesting that it should be illegal, I'm just seeing this monetization of bad vibes and wondering how we can have less bad vibes. Pump the brakes a little.
Things that are not illegal can and should be made illegal if need be.
Many things were not illegal before they became illegal.
I can't say I'm surprised and I think most people wouldn't be surprised either. But it's always good to have evidence.
Is this unavoidable? I mean it does generate clicks and views and user engagement so if one platform is doing it, doesn't that automatically mean that the other has to do it? Otherwise they will continuously lose market share.
I think the burden to curate your feed so that you do not have such content is now resting with the user and they cannot rely on the platform to do it for them.
If the user even wants to do that. Why would they? They're looking for a sugar rush, they're not looking to eat their intellectual vegetables. How do you get children to eat vegetables?
> I mean it does generate clicks and views and user engagement so if one platform is doing it, doesn't that automatically mean that the other has to do it? Otherwise they will continuously lose market share.
Why? User engagement isn't the same thing as market share.
If McDonald's trained its cashiers to insult you while taking your order, engagement would go up, and market share would go down.
Of course they did. As long as they're legally allowed to do so and profit from doing so they will continue.
I look at people who use fb or tiktok, or x, the same way I look at smokers or alcoholics. With sadness and pity. The fact that we let children use this is hard to accept. The fact that fellow hackers and engineers, some of the brightest minds, have contributed to this is extremely disappointing. Shame on you.
British people complaining about free speech and trying to censor the internet. America needs to keep standing up to British censorship interests.
What? Conspiracy theories are not harmful!
I remember The Social Dilemma’s entire premise was basically this headline minus TikTok, and that came out what? 7 or 8 years ago?
Not saying “well duh” I just think at this point I have to ask “are we going to do anything about it?”
We’ve known about the financial incentives to promote anger and outrage online for at least a decade now. So what are we going to do about it?
Given how TikTok "trends" seem to consist mostly of "get teenagers to do stuff that causes huge expenses for US society":
* "eat tide pods" * "stick a fork in electrical sockets in your school" * "destroy your school's shit" aka "Devious Licks" - bathrooms, chromebooks (jamming stuff into the charging ports to start fires...) * "drink a shitload of Benadryl to see what happens" * "steal a kia/hyundai and drive 80mph, run from the cops, etc"
...convince me that this is not a purposeful attack on US society by the CCP?
Drugs.