Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by photochemsyn 1404 days ago
You have to dig through this entire article to get to the punchline, but here it is:

> "These AI challenges, I would add, apply to monetization as well: one of the outcomes of Apple’s App Tracking Transparency changes is that advertising needs to shift from a deterministic model to a probabilistic one; the companies with the most data and the greatest amount of computing resources are going to make that shift more quickly and effectively, and I expect Meta to be top of the list. None of this matters, though, without engagement."

Relevant quote:

> "The junk merchant doesn't sell his product to the consumer, he sells the consumer to his product. He does not improve and simplify his merchandise. He degrades and simplifies the client." ― William S. Burroughs, Naked Lunch

This is slightly more complex with the social media business model: the product is the viewer, rather like a fish. The heroin-like bait to catch the viewer is the stream of short distractive entertainment content. The actual client buys the fish (the viewer) from the social media outfit. The actual client is an advertiser out to sell a product, a government out to push propaganda, a politician out to get votes, etc.

The more interesting aspect of this is that the clients might be paying the social media providers to control the content stream as a means of manipulating their audience. Weapons manufacturers might want Facebook/Instagram/Twitter to bury anti-war content; corporate media giants might want independent outlets booted off the recommendation algorithm results; established political parties might want independents hidden from view; etc

It's very plausible that this monetization model - i.e. not just the delivery of targeted advertising content to the 'engaged' audience, but also the targeted removal of competing content as a kind of shadow control of what that audience gets to see, is part of the revenue stream of Meta, Google, Twitter, etc.

Of course, people will agree that China is doing this with TikTok, but many tend to get uncomfortable if asked if the US government and major corporations are also playing this game on Twitter, Google, Instagram, Facebook, and Reddit.

3 comments

> but many tend to get uncomfortable if asked if the US government and major corporations are also playing this game on Twitter, Google, Instagram, Facebook, and Reddit.

De-monitization on YouTube should make this obvious to anyone.

Why would YouTube recommend content that isn't going to make them money?

Companies get to decide what makes money / where their ads are placed (this makes sense).

The problem is - the social media companies are big enough that they don't really need to care about your user experience. You AREN'T the customer! All they care about is serving you ads.

YouTube would much rather you have a mediocre experience using YouTube for 5 minutes and they make $0.50 off you than you have an outstanding experience for 30 minutes but they make $0 off you.

You get what you pay for - and with Social Media... That's nothing.

They don't need to pay for removal of competing content directly, because people only have so many hours in the day. If they pay to promote favorable content, the unfavorable content will be crowded out.
But "people" isn't just a single thing, it's a distributed system of many interdependent but ultimately independent agents. If you only grind your own axe, yes many people will be indeed swept in, but a lot of other people will spend their parallel hours seeing others grind their own axe, which would include the axes of your opponents. There is an equilibrium where you reach all the people you would ever reach but your opponents still carves out their own niche out of other people's attention.

Whereas, if you pursue both pushing your agenda and suppressing your opponent's agenda, you will more truly make it zero-sum. Now even the parallel people who would never see/care about your own propaganda would also never see your opponent's propaganda, because you suppressed it at its source.

Your summary of this phenomenon resonates with my experiences navigating the internet all these years. I find reddit to be the most perfect example of watching something authentic, human, and real... devolve into a manufactured, astroturfed facsimile of a forum community.

Years ago, reddit was filled with interesting discussions and analysis. Beautiful debates would rage on /r/news about current events, with equal showing of opposing viewpoints. Deep discussions on cinema in /r/movies. Excited chatter about the next video game and people's past favorites in /r/games. It was a place to talk shop for any interest.

Today, reddit is a vastly different place. /r/news is a perfect example of how ad companies and political groups pulled it off. Around the height of Trumps office, the left was able to strongly rally around hatred for the man and therefore hatred for any conservative. During this time of high emotion, the /r/news subreddit had a mod overhaul which completely aligned the political framing to 100% progressive, with a search and destroy mentality to all right wing thought. Only certain "power users" with ties to established media companies and left wing political groups would post articles there and any competing user or troublesome commenter would be banned. After only a few months of this, anyone with a centrist or right wing opinion was banned or just left, and today /r/news is now a perfect echo chamber for progressive politics. If a newbie were to go visit /r/news on reddit today they would have to believe that surely everyone must think this way, and surely /r/news is a reflection of reality, but it is not, it is a curated and controlled echo chamber.

The power inherent in falsifying organic communities and engagement in propagandizing and selling things to people is incredible. Our society is increasingly distrusting of traditional media, news, talking heads and the like, and have turned to the authenticity of social media strangers to get a better idea of the real discourse around current events. When those pools of discussion get poisoned, manipulated, and falsified, it further breaks down our ability to understand each other or feel connected.

On the advertising front,/r/movies and /r/television are merely a constant stream of Movie/TV ads and celebrity gossip. /r/games might as well be the front page of a games industry magazine. The organic discussions are few and far between, and the marketing pushes from content creators are ever more apparent. You will see movies get odd posts by some rabid fan who just saw the newest release and can't wait to share how wonderful it was! Several comments agree that this new movie is a joy, great fun! Then you watch it and it's awful, true garbage, and if you search around you'll find out most real people agree... and you realize you were tricked, no human ever liked this dull film, some social media intern wrote that reddit post and paid for flair to pop it up. You start to realize that from mainstream reviews... to reddit posts.. everything online is bought and paid for. What can you believe?

This is the reality of the modern online social media space. Users are cattle to be herded towards products and worldviews and mindsets. Governments and companies alike prod and seduce us towards their desired result, and we're meant to believe that everything we're experiencing is authentic... but it isn't.

The question now is... what's next? We know that people feel more alone and disconnected than ever before, and that authenticity seems to be in dwindling supply... how can we take back the internet? How can real discussion and community build up again? Maybe it's discord, maybe it's web3.0. Who can say... but we cannot accept that this beautiful cyberspace of human knowledge is becoming the worlds largest marketing ploy.

Spot-on analysis. These days, I use sheer volume of personal, human-generated content as a filter: I visit a blog, and if there is a history of quality posts, I know I can at least trust that this opinion is genuine and human. That's not to say it's correct... but at least I won't feel manipulated any more than if any friend recommended a crappy product, TV show, or movie to me. Spam redditor accounts are relatively easy to screen based on history -- real people have varied comment histories with passionate comments based on their thoughts and feelings. Spam accounts do not.

With stuff like GPT-3 and DALL-E, I'm not sure how much longer this metric will suffice. But I don't think impermanent, semi-synchronous mediums like discord will fill the gap for me. Nor will web3, which, as far as I can tell, is simply a pile of increasingly abstreuse ponzi schemes.

I continue to hope for a decentralized blog + RSS solution. It's as simple as growing the community with existing standards, after all.

Yes, that seems to be the norm on Reddit. A couple years ago I signed up to Reddit and the first thing I tried to post was something to r/news on what I thought was pretty relevant, an Indian news site covering a major China outreach to Pakistan on an energy deal relevant to China's overland effort, the whole 'Belt and Road' thing. I follow energy news, and this was a pretty important thing, I thought, but r/news blocked the post because it wasn't from their 'approved list of news sources' or something. After watching Reddit for a while, I realized most of it was just a corporate media mirror.

I didn't bother to post anything after that, and recently deleted my account there.