The No-Algorithms Follow-Up | Hacker News Reader

The No-Algorithms Follow-Up

inessential.com

57 pointsjseliger8 comments

Social media algorithms have produced the worst results recently. But some outlets like tabloids and AM radio have long embraced outraged hyperbole and blatant falsehood to attract audiences.

Possibly any motivation beyond a desire to inform damages the message at least a little. And sometimes annihilates factuality completely.

I would conjecture this is because facts are often subtle, ambiguous, complex or contradict preconceived notions. So choosing between reality vs entertainment/outrage portrayed as reality, people tend to prefer the latter. So anyone maximizing for numbers will be drawn into the latter too. Maybe this is the human bug referred to in the article.

So current algorithms that maximize engagement are obviously catastrophically bad and any curation has to be better. But there may yet be undiscovered (likely non trivial) algorithms that promote calm reality. They just might be less profitable. As newspapers are less profitable.

They might be profitable for someone else though.

I'm think ad-blocker combined with spam blocker-tech, build it into your browser (or Hacker News style aggregator) and automatically choose the best coverage of a particular story via signals like does it link to the scientific paper it mentions.

No algorithm also has the problem of being limited to your own bubble of curated content. I don't think that's the best thing either although it's a lot better than optimizing for engagement.

I think the problem is not just the algorithm but the presentation as well. Take the dominant 'news feed' view of your network:

* Posts are each given a fixed area of the feed. They are treated much like a steam of banner adverts.

* Individuals are all crammed in the same feed, as if they are competitors for your attention.

* Individuals who post more frequently will dominate the feed. If you have someone who only posts three times a week - but it is all gold - you'll never see those posts.

Compare this to the days before RSS when you had a list of bookmarks and you checked up on websites individually. It certainly lacked the convenience of the news feed - but the reading experience was better in my opinion.

Compare it to the “old days” where newspapers ge the size of headlines and placement. Not sure the uniform size is actually a step backwards.

If the premise of the article is true, then why aren't major newspapers feeding on anger and rage?

I suspect that the algorithm is not the problem, but the inability to do proper fact-checking is.

I think there are several reasons:

- If your publication starts feeding on anger and outrage you become a tabloid by definition.

- There is plenty of negativity going on in there but it’s more subtle. Remember the whole completely false cycle of “Apple Watch is a failure” news or the Big Hack story? New York Times published a bollocks article about the Chinese hospital system with fake translations of witness accounts.

Now I still have more trust in major publications than other outlets but even those are not that good at or eager to fact check if it makes for a better story.

Fox News? NY Post? They sure do. There is a long-standing tradition of his; look up “yellow journalism”, Hearst, etc in the US alone. This kind of thing also fueled progressive reforms, not jus mendacious ones.

And it has been widespread in other countries, sometimes tongreat effect, e.g. Der Stûrmer.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com