[gfaster]

> And anyhow, those algorithms are just showing you what you want. Don’t try to deny it, if it wasn’t what you wanted you wouldn’t be doomscrolling so much, would you?

I believe this to be based on a faulty assumption: people do what they want. While it may be true that at the reptile-brain level we do want what the Algorithm feeds us, that statement is equivalent to saying that someone who is addicted to opiates wants to feed their addition. It's only true at the most shallow of levels.

The article at large seems to realize that, but I think what is needed is to distinguish "want" as what we as rats in the Skinner box want and "want" as what we humans who do not wish to be prey to that Skinner box. That is the promise of platforms without the Algorithm, just that it wont try to take advantage of users.

(As a side note, I am an advocate for using capital 'A' the Algorithm to refer to the content-aware, black-box recommendation engines that run social media sites. That let's us continue to talk about lowercase 'a' algorithm to refer to sorting and such)

[Ieghaehia9]

Even on a reptile-brain level, the article's use of wanting is sort of an equivocation. The brain has different systems for "wanting" and "liking". Cocaine affects the former, opioids the latter.

Capital A Algorithms maximizing engagement are very much on the "wanting" side. Firing off an angry response to a political opponent's belittling post is rarely ever really /enjoyable/.

[StrictDabbler]

TikTok's algorithm is firmly on the "wanting" and not liking side. That's why it creates so much ragebait.

The moderation is very strict so the ragebait is limited to people ruining (cheap) wedding dresses with colored soap and screwing toilet-seats to the trunks of junked cars, or whatever. A vast flood of videos that only exist because anybody watching them will be disappointed and angry.

If the TikTok mod team slacked up for a second you'd see nothing but culture-war political ragebait and hate speech. It hovers on the edge even now.

[civopsec]

Skinner seems like a way too outdated reference to use.