[fatcat500]

All that brilliance and knowledge, used to get vulnerable, suggestible teenagers addicted to mind-numbing, anxiety-inducing media. The shame of software engineers is that we have been used to create 1000s of these inhuman products.

[imiric]

The problem is not just with the addiction, and it doesn't affect only teenagers.

These systems show paid content mixed with user-generated content, promoting harmful advertisements, political propaganda, or any other ideology anyone with enough resources and desire to influence large segments of society is able to take advantage of.

Let's not forget the Cambridge Analytica scandal, and not doubt that there are _many_ more such companies operating without public knowledge. This is all done legally, and within the terms of service.

This is even without mentioning the rampant data siphoning and shady multi-billion dollar data markets that exist in the background, that generate most of their revenue. After all, all this technology and optimization is serving this end goal.

These platforms are not just harmful to individuals, but to society as a whole. I hope one day governments catch up to the harms they're doing, and regulate them just as they did for Big Tobacco and many other truly evil industries.

[MattDemers]

>I hope one day governments catch up to the harms they're doing, and regulate them just as they did for Big Tobacco and many other truly evil industries.

But how does that happen when our government officials (at least in North America) seem technologically illiterate, and rely on Silicon Valley for their re-elections and donations (therefore becoming more susceptible to lobbying)?

[jbaczuk]

The shame of those software engineers

[JohnFen]

I do think it brings shame on the whole field. It's not right, but it seems to be the case.

[ok123456]

My feed is full of mostly educational content, lawyers and other professionals telling stories, language lessons, old computers and tech, and old commercials.

Most of the videos seem to be 1.5 minutes long.

[blakebreeder]

idk, my TikTok feed is full of cats and dogs doing funny things.

[tester457]

My question is why teenagers gravitate to horrendous content en masse.

Young girls have feeds full of eating-disorder content, and young boys have feeds mixed with misogyny like Tate. Not all teenagers watch either, but these recommendations are a disease plaguing the platform.

[hellomyguys]

They don't gravitate towards it. The algorithm inches them towards that. It starts with exercise videos and healthy eating, which is fine, but eventually goes towards eating-disorder content. Similar for boys.

[rootusrootus]

What's the motivation for rigging the algorithm to push people into negative content?

[munificent]

Here's an analogy to understand ad-driven social media apps:

Imagine a world where there are thousands of companies out there that produce these strange little unpleasant pellets of food that they want people to eat. They don't want people to buy them—the company is happy to send out pellets for free because they make money when the pellets get eaten. (Let's not worry about how that could make economic sense. Maybe the pellets are made of sequestered carbon and the company is selling carbon credits.)

So all these companies want to get millions of people eating their pellets, but people don't want to. They don't taste very good and they've got, like, better shit to do with their lives.

But people do like eating other food. And usually they have to pay for it, which kind of sucks.

An opportunity exists here, and "social eating" companies pop up. These companies will ship you food for free, and you can eat as much as you want. What joy! The only catch is they've mixed some of these not-very-tasty pellets in with the food they send you. The social eating companies get paid by the pellet companies, which is how they're able to make and send you food for free.

Here is the interesting question: What kind of food do the social eating companies make? You might think that since they want to get as many people eating their food mixed-with-pellets as possible, they would make the best food they can. And, indeed, they do want to make food that is scrumptious, compelling, and mouth-watering. But what they don't want it to be is satisfying. Because once you're sated, you stop eating. That's the last thing they want because the more pellets you choke down, the more they get paid.

So what they make is junk food like chips and cookies. Each serving is a single tiny delicious bite, but as soon as it goes down, you're even hungrier than before. Its high in anticipation and desire, but low is satisfaction and satiety. You crave it, but once you have it, you don't actually feel any better. If anything, the craving is even more intense.

Now apply that metaphor to information. The most junk-food-like content is the stuff that triggers anxiety and anticipation if you don't watch it: fear of missing out, question-inducing "You won't believe...", alarming "You're doing ___ wrong...", etc. The content doesn't make you feel good if you do watch it, it makes you feel bad if you don't. Because that way, when you do watch it, the nagging anxiety goes away a bit, but you still don't feel "done" and still want more.

[red-iron-pine]

clickbate.

that which inflames or causes controversy gets sent around or reposted.

clicks == money.

as does "sponsored content" aka "post this to everyone who meets demographic groups X and Y". just so happens that some of those people want folks angry about some topic.

[Phrenzy]

Emotions garner attachment. Negative emotions even more so.

[rootusrootus]

I guess that makes sense. Just following the user's preference gets only positive content, which is great, but carefully steering them to something darker is even better.

[falcolas]

And birds and sneks. Good, wholesome stuff a vast majority of the time.

[karaterobot]

Agreed, but I don't want to excuse anybody. I think every one of those engineers signed up to do it in exchange for money. They used their talents, they weren't forced into it.

[dhimes]

I wonder what may happen in the future. I'm sure neither Purdue Pharmaceuticals nor the Sackler family expected to be seen as criminal in what they were doing (opioid epidemic). But when the outcomes were shown to be a result of their actions, they were convicted— or at least forced into settlement.

[luckylion]

Nobody has "been used" to create those things. They do it knowingly and willingly, because they're paid huge sums of money in return.

Don't turn it into "we just followed commands" or "we were tricked", own whatever you're working on.

[gruffin]

"The best minds of my generation are thinking about how to make people click ads"

- Jeff Hammerbacher

[ipaddr]

This is reductionist. Why does anyone want you to click ads? Because they want you to see what they shared with the world. The best minds are trying to get people to pay attention to those who wish to pay for that.

A video game programmer might sat.. "all of the best minds are working on silly games" Why are so many bright minds wasting trying to get us into space when we have problems that need to be solved here.

The best minds solving problems is only part of any solution anyways. You need the best salesmen, best leader and right moment to bring in change that mat make lives better.

[pixl97]

"The paperclip optimizer is simply trying to make another paperclip, what's the harm in that?"

[andrepd]

> Why does anyone want you to click ads? Because they want you to see what they shared with the world. The best minds are trying to get people to pay attention to those who wish to pay for that.

Framing advertising as "people trying to share beautiful things with you" is some hell of a newspeak.

[lostmsu]

Maybe they are not the best minds after all.

[eimrine]

> The shame of software engineers

What decisions are on these guys? How to name some variable? How to receive mole salary? Or what manager's/marketologists' decision not to code?