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.
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.
Maybe there will be a time for that, but I'm thinking that if we let it happen now, that organism will be an idiot.
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.
The modern web is the fentanyl version of TV in terms of addictiveness.
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.
With your video game idea, what's the difference between this and other software? Some social media seems like the game that never ends.
Check out this gizmodo article:
https://gizmodo.com/chess-was-once-deemed-a-menace-to-societ...
People are weird.
No liking things. The Protestant work ethic demands no fun. Only anger and work. Play is of SATAN.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
At best algos get you there faster.
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.
Again, this is just a data point of one.
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 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.
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.
So it's you agree that the villains are evil, but your defence for them is that they are inept?
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?
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.
Oh yes, the notorious No Law, made by Congress — as directed in the First Amendment.