Hacker News Reader

Comment by slg | Hacker News Reader

The problem is more specifically "algorithmic feeds" which isn't require by or exclusive to social media. For example, news sites and media sites like Youtube and Spotify (which arguably have social aspects, but most people don't use them like social media) also contribute in similar ways. The root problem is the algorithm optimizing for attention mixing with human nature that tends to make negative reactions more powerful than positive reactions which causes the algorithms to create a sort of polarization death spiral.

View on HN

If we are going to be pedantic, let's do it correctly. The specific, direct problem is advertising, where the money flows. Algorithmic feeds are designed to capture attention, and the reason for attention capture is eyes on advertisements.

Having identified the true root of the problem, I would recommend directing resources towards dismantling advertising. Focusing on anything else is wasted effort.

That’s not the root. The root is capitalism’s need for constant growth. You can still create a successful business via advertising without the need to turn to algorithmic attention maximizing feeds if the only goal was serving customers and keeping workers employed. The problem is that whoever put up the capital to start the business is unlikely to be satisfied with that. This is why independent media and worker owned media is seeing a rise in popularity. Sustainability is obviously much easier to achieve than perpetual growth.

You can't have perpetual sustainability without perpetual growth.

Also, capitalism doesn't need perpetual growth either (anymore than other system, that is). Independent and worker-owned media are still facets of capitalism, for starters.

> You can't have perpetual sustainability without perpetual growth.

That sounds self-contradicting. How do you define «sustainability» in that case?

The property of preserving/sustaining itself.

Okay. Do you then consider an equilibrium to be inherently unsustainable?

If you take «growth» to be defined as d(something)/dt>0, I’d posit that any equilibrium by definition has zero net growth, whether it’s a static or dynamic equilibrium.

For social systems, yes.

That said, in long run, there's both a tendency for most growth to fall and for basically nothing to be sustainable.

That’s not the root. The root is the human drive for survival.

We can stop any time, now. Money was already a satisfactory root cause.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com