• Rimu@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    49
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    Even if fedi was pure and perfect, it still exists within a wider ecosystem of algo-driven rage and it’s influence leaks in from every side. It’s not just that we don’t exclusively get our news from the fedi it’s that news articles themselves are optimized for rage, the writers are deeply under it’s spell, politician’s media strategy is optimized for it.

    • Iced Raktajino@startrek.websiteOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 month ago

      True, there’s definitely that. I guess I just wish there was more thought between that and “do I really need to post this?”

    • idunnololz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      It certainly could be true but ever since I started blocking news on sight and read my local newspaper only, I have not seen nearly as much rage bait content.

      That being said it is kind of annoying that every time I block a community posting news another one pops up :/

    • lastlybutfirstly@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      Algorithms give you what you want. If you’re getting rage, you’re looking at and upvoting rage. On Reddit, 99% of what I get are posts about Hitman, Blender, Boomershooters and other things I’m interested in. The same with YT except I also get obscure movies from the 30s and 40s. The more of that I consume, the more the algorithms push it to me. The same with news. If there’s a big news event I might read and watch a bunch of news and then all the news stuff gets pushed to me.

      Algorithms boil down to “Did user look at, upvote something with these keywords? If yes, then send more things with those keywords their way.” These magical mystery algorithms are probably 5 lines of code most.

      • Njos2SQEZtPVRhH@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        Yes, it gives you what you respond to, it steers towards engagement. So it provides content which has a strong emotional response because the strong emotions drive us to engage. Anger and resentment are very strong driving powers here. I don’t doubt that what you’re saying about how the things you engage with, and how you steer the algorithm or the algorith steers you. But that doesn’t disprove the fact that algorithms are generally making our debates more angry, it would just suggest that you are less vulnerable to this.

        • lastlybutfirstly@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          What would disprove it is if people would quit upvoting, reading, and watching things that make them more and more angry. Algorithms don’t steer anyone. People steer themselves with the algorithms. They’re essentially mirrors of one’s personality. Just be aware if you upvote a post that says “Tech billionaire kills baby seals with his bare hands, has sex with the corpses, and laughs about it on TikTok”, you’re going to get more stuff that has all those keywords in it. However, if you upvote “How do I subdivide a mesh in Blender?” you will get a bunch of stuff about Blender, subdividing 3D models, and other topics related to that.

          • Njos2SQEZtPVRhH@piefed.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 month ago

            Yes, it’s a mirror, that shows us people are very emotional, and prone to react to emotional triggers. The algorithm has figured this out and is using it to maximize engagement. People will not stop reacting to these emotional triggers. Sure it’s commendable to avoid these rage-baits and pay attention to other things, and some will be better at this than others. But to think that people en masse can choose to not be caught and manipulated by these algorithms seems really naive. I know tons of people who spend more time on TikTok than they wish they did, but it’s hard to resists something that’s so cleverly optimized towards you, as Yuval Noah Harari says it: it’s hacking our brain.

            • lastlybutfirstly@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 month ago

              The algorithms aren’t that smart. They’re extraordinarily dumb.

              For example, on YT recently I got recommended an ancient video from 2011 where an ex-con was giving advice about how to pick up hookers. I looked at the comments and tons of them were recent and also confused about why they were recommended this video. After sifting through my own watch history, I realized I had recently watched the Austrian version of Eyes Wide Shut where the main character meets a hooker. So the algorithm just looked and saw the synopsis had the word “hooker” and found another video where the word “hooker” is used, and then sent it my way.

              The algorithm is not even as smart as any given free chess app that some college kid wrote over the weekend as an exercise. If the algorithm is manipulating people and hacking their brains, that’s a problem with the wetware not the software. The remote control isn’t hacking people’s brains when they press 5 and the TV displays channel 5.

  • Speiser0@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    1 month ago

    Sadly this is not true. We do have a recommendation system, called Top. And it spamms me with enraging american politics when I go to All.

    • OpenStars@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      If it is Top, then that is what people are choosing to upvote. But you don’t have to browse by Top. PieFed even offers keyword filters, plus the ability to unsubscribe from all such communities while also allowing you to see them with just the touch of a button to go to a Topic Feed showing it when you (rarely) actually do want it. You could also replicate this behavior in Lemmy, but it takes having one account per Internet area and that’s a huge pain. Or you could just sort by New. Or block the users submitting such content. The list of configuration options available to you is practically endless, and nowhere explained in the slightest degree that would be helpful:-).

      !nonpolitical_comics@piefed.social does a pretty good job of keeping that stuff out.

    • merc@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      The difference is in who decides what you see.

      Lemmy’s “Top” is scaled based on what other Lemmy users are doing: upvotes, comments, etc. It’s basically the people who use the site collectively deciding what’s interesting, which is a lot of American politics these days.

      Meta, Youtube, Twitter, etc. use what people on the site say as part of the algorithm, but they also examine the content to try to discover if it is something engaging or enraging. They compare it against models of what makes people stay engaged, so if there’s something with millions of comments and lots of “likes” but Meta doesn’t think it’s good content for them to sell ads against, they’ll push it down in the ranking.

  • macniel@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    The thing is, this 100% organic rage is OUR rage, not the rage of our supposed technofeudal overlords.

  • salacious_coaster@feddit.online
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 month ago

    It’s easy to blame “the algorithm” for our divisiveness. Much harder to accept that the algorithm does that because it amplifies flaws in human nature.

    • [deleted]@piefed.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 month ago

      It is fairly easy to accept that it is just amplifying human nature. The main issue is that with the major locked down aggregators the amplification is intentional and continuously changed to increase the amplification by doing things like stuffing divisive posts into feeds.

    • mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      because it amplifies flaws in human nature.

      It might be amplifying already existing traits, but that doesn’t excuse it. It’s still damaging to society at large

      • krashmo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        A huge chunk of humanity is currently tripping up over the “is fascism bad?” question. There’s no fucking way we’re tackling the subtle influence of internet algorithms.

        On the bright side, if we do ever get around to the topic there will probably be a lot fewer opinions to contend with.

  • CubitOom@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 month ago

    Posting current events in the appropriate communities should not be considered “rage”. People deserve to be informed and have the ability to plan for the future.

    What you are doing is essentially raging against the news.

  • GreenKnight23@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 month ago

    less free range than you’d think. I would say at least 30% of content on the fediverse is bot originated. 5-16% of commentary is AI generated.