I left Twitter last Sept because I became exhausted by my liberal 'progressive' bubble policing my comments & questions. It was the *best* behaviour modification for my mental wellbeing, perhaps in my entire life so far. I wrote about it, if anyone wants to look up 'Sex is great, but have you tried quitting Twitter' by Mike Hind.
Thank you for your beautifully en pointe piece on this.
With my social platform of choice (Instagram) I have found tremendous value in something shy of the “log off” - the hard reset. To manage my own usage behavior I’ll regularly go on a follow/unfollow spree, delete the IG app and switch to web (a far inferior experience but also one that’s less user targeted), or take long-ish breaks entirely. This apparently has the effect of confusing the algorithms powering the explore/recommendation engine — I’m not sure how this works technically, but the effect is that when I reengage, I’m reset back to the default recommended content for engagement (cute puppies, feel-good stories, the occasional celebrity) versus whatever “more like this” pattern I was seeing in the past. I guess I like to think I’m somehow outsmarting the rabbit hole-ing phenomenon and keeping my ecosystem from germinating too deeply in any one direction. But I wouldn’t have put it into these words without being prompted by this essay.
To your point, we are often looking through the wrong end of the telescope. Seems to me that the problem is that every person on earth is hardwired by evolution to solve their existential danger of being kicked out of their group by operating through biases. By now, given all the research, analysis, books, and attempts to change this fact, we should realize that the problem of the "Bias-driven Human Operating System" isn't going to go away no matter what we do.
Even Danny Kahneman admitted recently that all his own Nobel-winning research hasn't improved his own decision making!
The only solution would be to change the environment so that these insurmountable biases are less self-destructive. Eh, good luck with that. Besides the requirement of replacing the media's economic model, we're all pretty safe (as you point out) living in our own version of Fox News, even us super smart libs.
We simply weren't made for today's information ecosystem, which is not driven by triggering biases (rather than deliberation.)
As Aboved As sequenced a la Chas ..... Protest - [ Mmmmm .... ] . Think : How's That ? .. Speeks : How Do ....... ? . Contest Challenge and similars . . ... .. .... ............
Straight out of over there by ways of dawdling trawling is it called [ ? } and Hey Peresto Ho Hey AberacaDabrAed sorta , even kinda found sans scrutiny sans - [ even ] - reading an Article would urge SomeOne to elaborate if you should pleases ..... And this
Enlightening perspective on the new social dynamics of the Internet.
...Perfect grounding for why an open market of newsfeed filtering services is needed to help us keep things in perspective and see reflections of multiple audiences - as my Tech Policy Press article explains. https://bit.ly/SavDem1
Charlie, why is your Twitter timeline "algorithmically filtered"? I have it set for chronological order, which is one of the reasons I love it. With "See latest Tweets" I don't think there is an algorithm involved. I just see everyone I follow as they Tweet. Can't do that on Instagram. On Facebook you can choose "Most Recent", but their algorithm is so bad I will miss important posts if I do that. Just curious about why you might choose the Twitter algorithm over the latest Tweets?
2. I can only see other verified accounts by default
3. Supplemented in some way such that accounts are scored by how much misinformation they share - sort of like Pagerank meets Bot Sentinel
That may not be enough, but I think a good socialism norm would be for people to ask whether a piece of information shared online is coming from a verified account with a good-faith reputation score
I remain amazed at the sheep-like quality of so many Americans. I've no idea why the endorphin hit of likes/comments/retweets means so very much to so many...more than interpersonal relationships, more than accumulating knowledge, more than the protection of privacy. I closed my SM accounts long ago. I have zero to 'prove' to FB or Twitter audiences. I have no desire to have an algorithm reduce my personal will. I can follow epidemiologists, public health experts, climatologists, economists, and historians without a Twitter account. FB is radioactive- the fact that most Americans refuse to close their FB accounts, knowing that their data is being weaponized is yet another confirmation that our democracy stands little chance of survival. Confirmation bias exists within every group of humans...the Jeopardy story is filled with absurdity and hypocrisy, but our civil rights are on the line while journalists look for 'new angles' to normalize the erosion of our civilization. The saddest part is that there is no hyperbole in the prior sentence, and it doesn't matter to a desensitized populace.
I left Twitter last Sept because I became exhausted by my liberal 'progressive' bubble policing my comments & questions. It was the *best* behaviour modification for my mental wellbeing, perhaps in my entire life so far. I wrote about it, if anyone wants to look up 'Sex is great, but have you tried quitting Twitter' by Mike Hind.
Thank you for your beautifully en pointe piece on this.
Fantastic piece. Thank you for sharing.
With my social platform of choice (Instagram) I have found tremendous value in something shy of the “log off” - the hard reset. To manage my own usage behavior I’ll regularly go on a follow/unfollow spree, delete the IG app and switch to web (a far inferior experience but also one that’s less user targeted), or take long-ish breaks entirely. This apparently has the effect of confusing the algorithms powering the explore/recommendation engine — I’m not sure how this works technically, but the effect is that when I reengage, I’m reset back to the default recommended content for engagement (cute puppies, feel-good stories, the occasional celebrity) versus whatever “more like this” pattern I was seeing in the past. I guess I like to think I’m somehow outsmarting the rabbit hole-ing phenomenon and keeping my ecosystem from germinating too deeply in any one direction. But I wouldn’t have put it into these words without being prompted by this essay.
Thank you for this post.
To your point, we are often looking through the wrong end of the telescope. Seems to me that the problem is that every person on earth is hardwired by evolution to solve their existential danger of being kicked out of their group by operating through biases. By now, given all the research, analysis, books, and attempts to change this fact, we should realize that the problem of the "Bias-driven Human Operating System" isn't going to go away no matter what we do.
Even Danny Kahneman admitted recently that all his own Nobel-winning research hasn't improved his own decision making!
The only solution would be to change the environment so that these insurmountable biases are less self-destructive. Eh, good luck with that. Besides the requirement of replacing the media's economic model, we're all pretty safe (as you point out) living in our own version of Fox News, even us super smart libs.
We simply weren't made for today's information ecosystem, which is not driven by triggering biases (rather than deliberation.)
As Aboved As sequenced a la Chas ..... Protest - [ Mmmmm .... ] . Think : How's That ? .. Speeks : How Do ....... ? . Contest Challenge and similars . . ... .. .... ............
Straight out of over there by ways of dawdling trawling is it called [ ? } and Hey Peresto Ho Hey AberacaDabrAed sorta , even kinda found sans scrutiny sans - [ even ] - reading an Article would urge SomeOne to elaborate if you should pleases ..... And this
Is
A Hello From
London .
YEW
kAy ......
Reminds me of an adage from the Last Psychiatrist blog - 'if you're reading it, it's for you.'
Enlightening perspective on the new social dynamics of the Internet.
...Perfect grounding for why an open market of newsfeed filtering services is needed to help us keep things in perspective and see reflections of multiple audiences - as my Tech Policy Press article explains. https://bit.ly/SavDem1
Charlie, why is your Twitter timeline "algorithmically filtered"? I have it set for chronological order, which is one of the reasons I love it. With "See latest Tweets" I don't think there is an algorithm involved. I just see everyone I follow as they Tweet. Can't do that on Instagram. On Facebook you can choose "Most Recent", but their algorithm is so bad I will miss important posts if I do that. Just curious about why you might choose the Twitter algorithm over the latest Tweets?
I would like a version of Twittee in which:
1. I can pay to have my identity verified
2. I can only see other verified accounts by default
3. Supplemented in some way such that accounts are scored by how much misinformation they share - sort of like Pagerank meets Bot Sentinel
That may not be enough, but I think a good socialism norm would be for people to ask whether a piece of information shared online is coming from a verified account with a good-faith reputation score
I remain amazed at the sheep-like quality of so many Americans. I've no idea why the endorphin hit of likes/comments/retweets means so very much to so many...more than interpersonal relationships, more than accumulating knowledge, more than the protection of privacy. I closed my SM accounts long ago. I have zero to 'prove' to FB or Twitter audiences. I have no desire to have an algorithm reduce my personal will. I can follow epidemiologists, public health experts, climatologists, economists, and historians without a Twitter account. FB is radioactive- the fact that most Americans refuse to close their FB accounts, knowing that their data is being weaponized is yet another confirmation that our democracy stands little chance of survival. Confirmation bias exists within every group of humans...the Jeopardy story is filled with absurdity and hypocrisy, but our civil rights are on the line while journalists look for 'new angles' to normalize the erosion of our civilization. The saddest part is that there is no hyperbole in the prior sentence, and it doesn't matter to a desensitized populace.