What should be banned is collection, storage, aggregation and trading of personal data. Social media needs to be unprofitable. The surveilance economy is not good for free societies.
The companies would still engage in it. But then you at least have something to hit them over the head with.
No. The algorithms, created to maximize ad-profits, are the ones promoting “engagement” which due to human nature always means anything that polarizes will be shown higher up in feeds than calm rational discourse.
There are multiple known possible negative effects of social media, not all off them caused by algorithmic feeds. Development of a negative self-image is the first thing to come to mind.
That, too, is caused by the algorithms. Else you would not be constantly fed with unattainable body images etc.
I think too many are unable to picture what algorithmic-free social media even looks like. Mastodon is a start, then you have Pixelfed (Instagram) and Loops (Tik-Tok) you can try as well. It’s really that different.
But don’t you think that even without algorithms, people on social media would have the urge to falsely portray their lives as perfect (or at least exclusively post about the positive aspects thereof) - leading to jealousy, FOMO and negative self-image for some of the viewers?
Why would people view/follow them? “Influencers” only exist because of the algorithms. I’ve seen several try on Mastodon, followed by loud complaining and leaving when they realize that posting a lot of hot takes doesn’t generate followers.
Almost correct. What should be banned is algorithmic social media. Non-algorithmic is just fine also for kids.
Its pretty hard to have a social network without an algorithm.
get all these posts and arrange them in chronological order is an algorithm.
That would mean regulating the companies, you know, the guys with all the money.
The EU has no problems doing that.
Would be a good start.
What should be banned is collection, storage, aggregation and trading of personal data. Social media needs to be unprofitable. The surveilance economy is not good for free societies.
The companies would still engage in it. But then you at least have something to hit them over the head with.
Is it though? Even non-algorithmic social media has downsides.
No. The algorithms, created to maximize ad-profits, are the ones promoting “engagement” which due to human nature always means anything that polarizes will be shown higher up in feeds than calm rational discourse.
Yeah, very true. But non-algorithmic social media timelines are also bad for mental health.
Why do you think so? What data supports that statement?
(I’m old enough to have grown up with non-algorithmic social media)
There are multiple known possible negative effects of social media, not all off them caused by algorithmic feeds. Development of a negative self-image is the first thing to come to mind.
That, too, is caused by the algorithms. Else you would not be constantly fed with unattainable body images etc.
I think too many are unable to picture what algorithmic-free social media even looks like. Mastodon is a start, then you have Pixelfed (Instagram) and Loops (Tik-Tok) you can try as well. It’s really that different.
But don’t you think that even without algorithms, people on social media would have the urge to falsely portray their lives as perfect (or at least exclusively post about the positive aspects thereof) - leading to jealousy, FOMO and negative self-image for some of the viewers?
Why would people view/follow them? “Influencers” only exist because of the algorithms. I’ve seen several try on Mastodon, followed by loud complaining and leaving when they realize that posting a lot of hot takes doesn’t generate followers.