[wmichelin]

The way this is written makes it sound like you think there's an algorithm saying "if bad person: then boost".

The credibility is ranking. The ranking is a function of engagement. The engagement is a function of human nature. Things delightful, shocking, or unusual usually strike that chord. Sprinkle capitalism into the mix and people become professionally delightful, shocking, or unusual.

I don't think the ranking algorithms are the problem here.

[Zigurd]

You're blowing right past the question of whether the result of successful dark patterns is legitimate engagement. It's a computer. It's got nothing better to do than run a better algorithm to avoid that outcome.

[soco]

One could argue though, that the idea of abusing human brains weaknesses like "engagement" is the problem here, and a ranking algorithm is just the implementation du jour of the basic evil concept.

[ceejayoz]

> The way this is written makes it sound like you think there's an algorithm saying "if bad person: then boost".

Not so directly, but that's the effective result.

[jonhohle]

I didn’t read it that way. Algorithms select for optimizing engagement. People whose brains have not fully developed are incapable of reliably distinguishing fiction presented as fact vs reality, especially when there is intentional deception. Combine those and you get engaging content that can influence a portion of the population with limited defense mechanisms against it.

This is also why minors can’t sign contracts, why broadcasts television used to only show more mature content after prime time, and all of the other ways children have historically been protected.

This isn’t about capitalism among equal parties.