zlacker

[parent] [thread] 88 comments
1. silver+(OP)[view] [source] 2024-08-27 17:00:42
A few years back it started showing me obvious political ragebait. I ignored it and then it started showing me pictures of women whose nipples were obviously showing through their clothing, which was an improvement, but still not the reason I signed up for Facebook. I've always understood it as the algorithm is looking for engagement and will try some lowest common denominator tactics to engage in it. As someone who just wanted to see the odd picture of a friend or relative, I don't have much use for Facebook these days.
replies(19): >>Gud+f8 >>rnd0+ch >>glatis+ph >>graeme+ck >>code_d+Mt >>mgiamp+oy >>SoftTa+QF >>nradov+wq1 >>beefnu+xq1 >>tomcam+4u1 >>Enigma+ru1 >>hojink+bx1 >>IG_Sem+3D1 >>rightb+3Z1 >>compli+dy2 >>yadaen+lB2 >>xnx+yD2 >>comman+Rw3 >>fennec+Yr5
2. Gud+f8[view] [source] 2024-08-27 17:40:16
>>silver+(OP)
That Facebook would turn into a soft core porn site was pretty unexpected, at least for me.
replies(6): >>ainiri+ud >>jasonj+mi >>rollca+ri >>lispis+rp >>jazzyj+QJ >>jdswai+Af1
◧◩
3. ainiri+ud[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-08-27 18:03:50
>>Gud+f8
Makes sense financially!
4. rnd0+ch[view] [source] 2024-08-27 18:23:02
>>silver+(OP)
>A few years back it started showing me obvious political ragebait. I ignored it and then it started showing me pictures of women whose nipples were obviously showing through their clothing, which was an improvement, but still not the reason I signed up for Facebook.

Same experience. Then, after ignoring that, I've started getting posts from mystery people who seem like they could be aquaintences (because hobbies) but aren't -an improvement, but still off the mark.

I just want to go back to where you could use facebook to share what you're up to and see what other folks you know are up to; but apparently that's too 00's to hope for.

replies(4): >>vineya+Ak >>axus+Sl >>cruffl+5D >>strang+KL
5. glatis+ph[view] [source] 2024-08-27 18:23:40
>>silver+(OP)
Facebook showing me political ragebait was the reason I uninstalled the app and stopped using Facebook.
◧◩
6. jasonj+mi[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-08-27 18:28:03
>>Gud+f8
Isn't that the winning formula on Instagram?
◧◩
7. rollca+ri[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-08-27 18:28:27
>>Gud+f8
Not surprising at all, considering the origins.
8. graeme+ck[view] [source] 2024-08-27 18:36:51
>>silver+(OP)
Its all about engagement.

Personalised ragebait is obviously works well for that.

never click on anything on FB unless you see a lot more of it, including really rubbish variants. Read or post about history, and get conspiracy theories. An interest in science will get you pseudo-science.

◧◩
9. vineya+Ak[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-08-27 18:38:46
>>rnd0+ch
> I just want to go back to where you could use facebook to share what you're up to and see what other folks you know are up to; but apparently that's too 00's to hope for.

But do folks you know post? I’m under the impression that the slop churned out for clicks are all that’s left.

replies(3): >>hunter+wl >>rnd0+lq >>Nursie+xu1
◧◩◪
10. hunter+wl[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-08-27 18:43:47
>>vineya+Ak
The answer can be found by clicking Feeds > Friends [0] and it's an overwhelming "Yes, this is great! Wait, 90% is 'shared' from someone I don't know anyway, not written by my friend, so it's only a slight improvement."

[0] https://www.facebook.com/?filter=friends&sk=h_chr (this URL seems to work on a desktop browser only; use the menu items in other situations)

◧◩
11. axus+Sl[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-08-27 18:45:43
>>rnd0+ch
How about a choice for which social circle you'd like to view at one time. We could call it "Circles".
replies(3): >>jazzyj+rG >>alex11+fh1 >>shawnc+nm1
◧◩
12. lispis+rp[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-08-27 19:00:39
>>Gud+f8
That seems to be what every social platform eventually turns into
replies(1): >>infamo+aB
◧◩◪
13. rnd0+lq[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-08-27 19:04:38
>>vineya+Ak
If they do, I'd probably be the last to know -because slop.
14. code_d+Mt[view] [source] 2024-08-27 19:19:36
>>silver+(OP)
Same here. There was nothing I could do to get my feed to not be full of provocatively insulting and irritating political posts. I’d unfollow, unfriend, block, say “show me less of this” and so on. But when I’d unfriend some person, very next thing on my feed would be political content I didn’t like from some totally random person on my friend list who I’d never interacted with. Meanwhile I’d notice that people I actually knew in person had life events I’d want to know about - got married, took a nice vacation, had children even, and FB had never showed me stuff like that! So I just stopped using it entirely. Then when I went back after a few years, the site demanded my driver’s license. So guess I will just never sign in again.
replies(2): >>Dalewy+Hv1 >>Albert+CE1
15. mgiamp+oy[view] [source] 2024-08-27 19:41:42
>>silver+(OP)
There is actually a reasonable way to fix this as currently implemented. Engage with the platform in some popular areas that have their own targeted advertising. My feed is filled with STEM projects and gardening with a spritz of actual content from friends.

When the product is used as intended, it does a lot better than with zero engagement passively. The product is very tuned to people actually using it, which the average hacker news reader isn't.

replies(2): >>RoyalH+n11 >>pdntsp+FA1
◧◩◪
16. infamo+aB[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-08-27 19:52:13
>>lispis+rp
Like all other physical systems, social networks are subject to entropy.
◧◩
17. cruffl+5D[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-08-27 20:02:36
>>rnd0+ch
> I just want to go back to where you could use facebook to share what you're up to and see what other folks you know are up to; but apparently that's too 00's to hope for.

And now they have some way for "AI" to write your entire FB post for you. Which I'm sure will end well. Why think for yourself and write what you mean when you can let AI do all the thinking for you?

replies(1): >>saalwe+OM
18. SoftTa+QF[view] [source] 2024-08-27 20:17:47
>>silver+(OP)
What if they had shown you pictures of men whose penises were obviously showing through their pants? Why was Facebook not being gender-neutral with this tactic?
replies(3): >>Fatnin+gS >>numpad+l42 >>pjc50+qB2
◧◩◪
19. jazzyj+rG[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-08-27 20:20:32
>>axus+Sl
that would be so wildly popular we could see a Diaspora
replies(1): >>BobbyJ+F51
◧◩
20. jazzyj+QJ[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-08-27 20:39:11
>>Gud+f8
Instagram is {in}famous for its bikini babes, a not insignificant fraction of which advertise their "availability" in various cities. How this has never come up in the various congressional hearings about protecting children mystifies me, reddit, twitter and instagram all have a culture of onboarding young women into sex work.
replies(3): >>ianhaw+1k1 >>squigz+Xw1 >>steven+rD1
◧◩
21. strang+KL[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-08-27 20:49:02
>>rnd0+ch
Maybe Zuck should apologize for that - he's quite good at groveling to Congress. He may also want to apologize to investors for totally shifting Meta's focus to VR despite it being clear that it is not as big as he claimed. But he likes being underestimated.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/news/mark-zuckerberg-rather-under...

◧◩◪
22. saalwe+OM[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-08-27 20:55:20
>>cruffl+5D
It frees you up to focus on the most important part of the experience: organic ad clicks.
◧◩
23. Fatnin+gS[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-08-27 21:25:54
>>SoftTa+QF
Because fb knows the user is male and odds are this would attract a click.
replies(2): >>SoftTa+iT >>LightB+o91
◧◩◪
24. SoftTa+iT[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-08-27 21:32:14
>>Fatnin+gS
True. They probably know if you're gay also, so in that case they might do it.
◧◩
25. RoyalH+n11[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-08-27 22:20:49
>>mgiamp+oy
At least for me, this is even worse. I would rather have a clear separation between the content being foisted on me and the content I'm there to actually see.
replies(1): >>mgiamp+K41
◧◩◪
26. mgiamp+K41[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-08-27 22:40:59
>>RoyalH+n11
If you give no signals, you get the lowest denominator content... boobies and click/ragebait.
◧◩◪◨
27. BobbyJ+F51[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-08-27 22:47:26
>>jazzyj+rG
Maybe it could have page customization features that let you upload html. Have it be a really custom space of your own.
replies(1): >>parado+Qd1
◧◩◪
28. LightB+o91[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-08-27 23:18:08
>>Fatnin+gS
click looks remarkably like dick when set in this context.
◧◩◪◨⬒
29. parado+Qd1[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-08-27 23:58:12
>>BobbyJ+F51
Could even start to resemble some sort of city
replies(2): >>chesch+so1 >>dotanc+yZ1
◧◩
30. jdswai+Af1[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-08-28 00:12:37
>>Gud+f8
The trouble is there is no way to turn it off. I've nothing against that kind of thing in the right place, but for me Facebook is not that place, and it sneaks in no matter how hard you try and prevent it.

Here's some funny fail videos...of girls in bikinis. Here's some sport images for the sport you are interested in, with far too revealing angles/images.

So I don't use Facebook any more, and feel much better for it.

◧◩◪
31. alex11+fh1[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-08-28 00:28:25
>>axus+Sl
By far the biggest thing people remember about Google+ was the hamfisting of it (several people lost their Youtube accounts) and yet people also reported that it was otherwise a good experience (compared to the Facebook feed); one thing Google had to contend with was Facebook not offering access to the social graph so they had to build the network effects by a more difficult route

eg Facebook replacing people's email addresses, one wonders if it was partly a way to fight Google+ >>4151433

replies(2): >>Alchem+Lx1 >>action+Ad2
◧◩◪
32. ianhaw+1k1[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-08-28 00:56:39
>>jazzyj+QJ
What exactly is there to protect children against? Instagram forbids nudity and regularly cracks down on it by banning accounts. I don't recall seeing any advertisements for prostitution on Instagram either. And of course, young women have been recruited into sex work long before social media or the internet.
replies(2): >>jazzyj+Tp1 >>rixed+Qu1
◧◩◪
33. shawnc+nm1[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-08-28 01:27:41
>>axus+Sl
Can I just say, the comments that have happened here before mine, have been stellar. Wow. And also, it's so weird to have some nostalgia for all of this now...
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
34. chesch+so1[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-08-28 01:58:04
>>parado+Qd1
You would need a ring of people to help navigate around it.
replies(1): >>jazzyj+6q1
◧◩◪◨
35. jazzyj+Tp1[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-08-28 02:13:06
>>ianhaw+1k1
You may not have experienced this but as soon as you're cute online you get direct messaged solicitations for photos, some offering hundreds of dollars for nudes. Once you've quit your job because your OnlyFans page took off you're stressed about keeping your numbers up so you start asking strangers to "collaborate" with to produce more content.

I know its progressive to consider sex work a perfectly good career choice but some of us still think its worth encouraging children to have some degree of modesty and keep sex a taboo topic to be explored with someone you trust.

And if you haven't noticed prostitution on instagram and twitter you just don't know the lingo, but basically city names + dates in the bio is a solicitation to DM for rates. "NYC 9/12-9/22, Miami 10/20-31", that kind of thing. Actually the one thing that impressed me about twitter is how much of a bubble this is, you don't stumble upon porn accounts in general, but once you follow a couple of accounts that promote sex work even politically (which I think people totally have the right to do, I do prefer the nordic model to whatever america is doing) you'll see hundreds of these.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
36. jazzyj+6q1[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-08-28 02:15:33
>>chesch+so1
At that point so much of our lives would start to be recorded digitally the internet could act as a kind of shared memory for the whole community
replies(1): >>parado+iq1
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯
37. parado+iq1[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-08-28 02:17:14
>>jazzyj+6q1
A living journal of some sort?
replies(1): >>HappMa+Zv1
38. nradov+wq1[view] [source] 2024-08-28 02:20:15
>>silver+(OP)
It's funny how different users can have such opposite experiences on the same platform. My Facebook feed contains zero political rage bait or soft-core porn. Mostly I see pictures of kids, pets, and vacations. I assume the difference comes down to who you follow and which posts you like, but the algorithm is totally opaque so who knows?
39. beefnu+xq1[view] [source] 2024-08-28 02:20:24
>>silver+(OP)
"..friend or relative.." "..nipples.." damn it, so you were the one that triggered years of the worst porn titles
40. tomcam+4u1[view] [source] 2024-08-28 03:15:36
>>silver+(OP)
> it started showing me pictures of women whose nipples were obviously showing through their clothing,

I’m using Facebook wrong

41. Enigma+ru1[view] [source] 2024-08-28 03:21:55
>>silver+(OP)
You're probably using it wrong. I never see the stuff people complain about. When one of my half-dozen Facebook friends posts something, Facebook emails me and I click the link for that specific post and don't see any other crap. I also occasionally participate in some local-only groups which don't have political ragebait or soft porn, just local people posting silly things they saw in the street or local marketplace groups where people sell their household junk.

I don't even know how to find this feed people keep talking about.

replies(1): >>Nursie+Sv1
◧◩◪
42. Nursie+xu1[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-08-28 03:23:06
>>vineya+Ak
Over time, fewer and fewer of them post, and they post less and less.

I post a lot less than I used to as well. At least in part this is because my feed is drowning in unwanted noise. Facebook's desparate attempts to wave stuff in my face 'for engagement' drive me away from posting more, so it becomes a vicious circle, driving down engagement, making people post less, round and round we go.

Maybe I'm weird, but if my friends aren't posting much, that's OK, that's what I came here to check. Instead I'm assaulted by noise, quite a lot of it either scammy or offensive.

replies(1): >>marcus+1F1
◧◩◪◨
43. rixed+Qu1[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-08-28 03:28:00
>>ianhaw+1k1
We must not have used the same Instagram. Every time i post a picture it is "liked" by several robots trying to sell sex under fake accounts which name would look suspicious to a 3 lines long perl script. I used to report and block them, now i just have all notifications permanently off.
◧◩
44. Dalewy+Hv1[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-08-28 03:39:12
>>code_d+Mt
>some totally random person on my friend list who I’d never interacted with.

While the Algorithm(tm) is complete garbage, you could also probably add less Totally Random Persons(tm) to your "friends" list.

If Totally Random Persons(tm) are getting added automagically, we have bigger problems.

replies(2): >>stavro+u42 >>code_d+qc5
◧◩
45. Nursie+Sv1[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-08-28 03:40:20
>>Enigma+ru1
> I don't even know how to find this feed people keep talking about.

You go to https://www.facebook.com

That's literally it. If you don't have a suite of adblockers and extensions like FB Purity installed, you'll probably see a ton of crap. If you don't see a ton of crap, I would love to know what sort of wizard spell you have cast to ward it off.

replies(1): >>Enigma+8fi
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣
46. HappMa+Zv1[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-08-28 03:42:22
>>parado+iq1
pastebin
replies(1): >>Apocry+1I2
◧◩◪
47. squigz+Xw1[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-08-28 03:51:06
>>jazzyj+QJ
> reddit, twitter and instagram all have a culture of onboarding young women into sex work.

That's quite a claim.

replies(1): >>pjc50+762
48. hojink+bx1[view] [source] 2024-08-28 03:54:06
>>silver+(OP)
I get similar things on Facebook too. The problem is, my Facebook profile clearly stated that I'm an asexual female, but the recommendation engine obviously didn't pick that up...
◧◩◪◨
49. Alchem+Lx1[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-08-28 04:01:30
>>alex11+fh1
I lost my original YouTube account due to Google+ spawning a new one from my gmail address I’d used to sign up for YT in the early days.

It’s been years and I’m still mildly annoyed about losing it.

replies(1): >>TeaBra+wE1
◧◩
50. pdntsp+FA1[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-08-28 04:39:03
>>mgiamp+oy
Many of us don't want any outside content. Just our friends. There is no way to engage with the platform to produce that sort of feed without hacking something.

Besides, even for my interests, I don't want to see a bunch of random if topical chaff. It's extremely rare for the algorithm to pick up on the kind of advanced, nuanced, and obscure discussions that I want to see, simply because they are invisible to it by their very nature.

Plus for whatever reason the algorithm thinks I'm super big on some things that make absolutely no sense... for example one recurring topic seems to be posts about various corporate logos and how they are constructed, yet I have never willingly engaged with anything on FB having to do with logos or graphic design. Another favorite topic it likes to show is really bad humor, like jokes so basic and elementary that I have a hard time understanding how anyone finds them funny. Oh and the obligatory horny bait.

It's nice that you've somehow managed to cajole your feed into something you can tolerate, but your post strikes me as suffering from the same kind of myopia common amongst tech workers who have never stepped outside their bubble. We as a group need to be pushing back much harder against the algorithmic slop that seems to dominate pretty much all popular social watering holes.

51. IG_Sem+3D1[view] [source] 2024-08-28 05:11:16
>>silver+(OP)
Question.

Did you ever try Facebook purity (FBP) ?

If yes, did the forcing of chronological content into the feed, not work? Or did Facebook finally kill the widget?

FBP was the only thing that made FB bearable for a while, but im curious to other peoples experience with it

◧◩◪
52. steven+rD1[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-08-28 05:15:51
>>jazzyj+QJ
I know very little of Insta.. but thought I'd seen a story, so did a DDG and first result includes:

"Stricter private messaging settings for teens To help protect teens from unwanted contact on Instagram, we restrict adults over the age of 19 from messaging teens who don't follow them, and we limit the type and number of direct messages (DMs) people can send to someone who "

With things like this, and now several states requiring that you must be 18 to use any social media, (because parents can't parent apparently?)

I wonder how much of a problem this really is?

I get it that smart teens will find ways to access naughty things no matter how many barriers are put in front of them..

But at some point we must look at parents and ask why 'children' would find it fine to spend lots of time staring at thirst traps.. I know kids that if someone was to put stuff like that in front of them they would push it away and tell multiple adults about it..

Of course I have also known parents that let their kids play grand theft auto at 6 years old.

So while I have tried to tell parents for years about what exists on game consoles and the internet and how they need to not only pay attention, but have open dialogue about sharing what they see and such.. it seems to me that most parents actually do not care what their kids see on the internets..

You could of argue that parents did not know what could be found online 20 years ago, but today's children had their parents grow up with unfettered access (most of them I believe) - and so they know and they don't care (again most I believe).

There are some vocal small groups screaming that there is a need to save the children, but I would assume most of them have kids with cell phones without any blocking systems installed.

That's not to say all. I do know a family that does not let any of their children watch TV, use the internet or cell phone - all their kids, 6yrs - 16 ..no TV even not at all and they would not even think about sneaking to use a cell phone behind their parents back.

Sadly as far as the world having a culture that onboards into sex work I believe has more to do with the rent is too damn high, food costs too much and people want designer / name brand things. If most women (and men) could easily earn a living wage within a few blocks of where they live, there would be much less onboarding period.

Sadly I have given up hoping that rent will be cut in half and wages will double anytime soon, if anything, I'd bet that if the wages double I think we'll see the same with the rent and food.

◧◩◪◨⬒
53. TeaBra+wE1[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-08-28 05:27:44
>>Alchem+Lx1
Google also spawned a second one for me from my original gmail address, but I still use my original pre-google+ youtube account. After signing in to that google account on any given device, I have the option to switch between the two youtube accounts associated with the email.
replies(2): >>Alchem+HP1 >>saghm+lZ2
◧◩
54. Albert+CE1[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-08-28 05:29:13
>>code_d+Mt
fbpurity.com

Try it out. I'm pretty happy with it; managing the feed doesn't feel like trying to hold back the tides anymore.

replies(1): >>tallan+QO1
◧◩◪◨
55. marcus+1F1[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-08-28 05:33:45
>>Nursie+xu1
I also post less because anything I say seems to be immediately shown to the person most likely to be outraged by it.

I used to use it like a daily "here's what I'm up to today" blog, because my friends and family would see that and it was a cool way of sharing my life with them.

The, somewhere around 2014-ish, it was suddenly unsafe to post normal stuff without getting criticised. I had a whole series of arguments with folks about things that I or they had posted. I stopped posting as much, and started checking all my posts first, and deleting old ones.

Then in 2017 I got a stalker who messaged all my friends and family with shit about me. I had to make my friends list private and unfriend a bunch of people (no great loss). It felt even more unsafe.

Now I post travel pics and that's it. I miss the old safe space.

◧◩◪
56. tallan+QO1[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-08-28 07:22:19
>>Albert+CE1
Not available on the Android version of Firefox, unfortunately.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
57. Alchem+HP1[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-08-28 07:33:17
>>TeaBra+wE1
That must be nice. Was your YT account also from before the acquisition?

My original account still exists and my face is in the videos as well but but I have no way to log in and support couldn’t or wouldn’t help me.

replies(1): >>TeaBra+bR2
58. rightb+3Z1[view] [source] 2024-08-28 09:05:02
>>silver+(OP)
I get those booty and nipple pics too. I think the algorithm might take 'hover time' in consideration. So it pumps posts that annoys you or otherwise makes you look a fraction of a sec longer.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
59. dotanc+yZ1[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-08-28 09:10:13
>>parado+Qd1
That might threaten current business models. The angles would set that on fire.
replies(1): >>parado+mU2
◧◩
60. numpad+l42[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-08-28 10:04:35
>>SoftTa+QF
This is generally because softcore pornography for women do not concern penises. Women seem to prefer exposed male chests.
◧◩◪
61. stavro+u42[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-08-28 10:06:21
>>Dalewy+Hv1
But that would be the wrong solution to the problem. I should be able to add whomever I want, and then be able to mute them permanently.
replies(2): >>Dalewy+og2 >>wwwest+R64
◧◩◪◨
62. pjc50+762[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-08-28 10:22:24
>>squigz+Xw1
Two things are both true:

- sex work is against Instagram TOS and they take active efforts to ban people doing it, including design features such as limiting people to exactly one offsite link per account which may not be to onlyfans

- because that's where the audience is and advertising there is effective, there's an entire industry in working out how to promote sex work on Instagram without getting banned

=> Insta ends up as part of the sales funnel despite actively trying not to be. See also Twitch. There is of course no evidence of them intentionally onboarding people into this, it's an emergent feature of being a site that posts images. Then have to censor aggressively, and even then sex work exists at a sort of "censorship shoreline".

On the other hand, Reddit and Twitter have never really cared, and only with some campaigning effort have they been made to censor nonconsensual intimate images. Twitter made its pornbot problem worse by selling bluetick promotion.

replies(3): >>jazzyj+fq2 >>squigz+hr2 >>Zak+Fi5
◧◩◪◨
63. action+Ad2[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-08-28 11:40:45
>>alex11+fh1
If Google had any direction and purpose, it could have kept not fucking up Circles until Facebook (almost inevitably it seems in retrospect) messed up.
replies(1): >>tim333+Ai2
◧◩◪◨
64. Dalewy+og2[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-08-28 12:11:29
>>stavro+u42
I think if you add not-friends to your friends list, the Algorithm(tm) perhaps justifiably recommends things from your friends list, and you get junk recommendations, the problem isn't entirely the Algorithm(tm)'s fault.

You feed the Algorithm(tm) garbage and it returns you garbage, and somehow it's all the Algorithm(tm)'s fault.

replies(2): >>stavro+eG2 >>code_d+Pc5
◧◩◪◨⬒
65. tim333+Ai2[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-08-28 12:31:48
>>action+Ad2
If Google just added customer happiness to their usual stuff it would fix a lot of things.
◧◩◪◨⬒
66. jazzyj+fq2[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-08-28 13:22:36
>>pjc50+762
Thanks for the elaboration, it's in line with what I meant to get across, it's not a company culture or intentional, it's just where the audience is.

I don't especially know what these platforms could do to stem the issue, I just think it's one more reasons 13 year olds should play outside

◧◩◪◨⬒
67. squigz+hr2[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-08-28 13:28:36
>>pjc50+762
"There are sex workers on Instagram" is a far cry from "they all have a culture of onboarding young women into sex work"
replies(1): >>jazzyj+RW2
68. compli+dy2[view] [source] 2024-08-28 14:07:15
>>silver+(OP)
> "which was an improvement"

I needed to laugh this morning. Thank you.

69. yadaen+lB2[view] [source] 2024-08-28 14:26:17
>>silver+(OP)
People talk about “the algorithm” but most of it is content creators hyper optimizing their content to make as much money as possible.

TikTok split screen slop is a xx million dollar business at this point so you can expect a huge investment to pump out even more slop YoY

◧◩
70. pjc50+qB2[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-08-28 14:26:35
>>SoftTa+QF
At one point people were playing a game with the Tumblr terms of service, which explicitly banned "female presenting nipples". Subjective standards of offence always result in ridiculous cases.
71. xnx+yD2[view] [source] 2024-08-28 14:39:16
>>silver+(OP)
Infrastructure is so cheap now. How is there not an ad-free social network? If you eliminate ads and the "intelligent" feed, that must save 95% of the administrative costs.
replies(1): >>JackMo+tR4
◧◩◪◨⬒
72. stavro+eG2[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-08-28 14:51:37
>>Dalewy+og2
It's the algorithm's fault for not listening to my "mute this person". I had my feed muted so I didn't see any posts (which is how I wanted it), but now I see random "recommended" content, with no way I can see to opt out. That's not my fault.
replies(1): >>throwa+0F4
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣▦
73. Apocry+1I2[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-08-28 15:02:44
>>HappMa+Zv1
Xanga
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
74. TeaBra+bR2[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-08-28 15:52:21
>>Alchem+HP1
The original YT account associated with the email was created in mid-2010, so not pre-acquisition.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
75. parado+mU2[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-08-28 16:08:17
>>dotanc+yZ1
Would they use tripods like in war of the worlds?
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
76. jazzyj+RW2[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-08-28 16:24:00
>>squigz+hr2
maybe I was too imprecise in my language

It is not THE culture of $SOCIALMEDIA to onboard young women into sex work, but once you find the bubble of thirst posting and find out there's money in it, it is an attractive pathway that the people in that subculture are happy to introduce you to, same as porn has always been, it's just that marketing and connecting to new talent is now much cheaper than it used to be

replies(1): >>squigz+L13
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
77. saghm+lZ2[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-08-28 16:38:26
>>TeaBra+wE1
It's good that you have access to both; out of curiosity, is there any differentiation in the way it list them in the menu where you pick which one to use, or is the order consistent? I can imagine being mildly annoyed if I had to guess every time I logged into a new device which one was the one I wanted, although obviously that's still better than just not having a choice.
replies(1): >>TeaBra+ww3
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
78. squigz+L13[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-08-28 16:54:34
>>jazzyj+RW2
Can't that be said about any industry?
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
79. TeaBra+ww3[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-08-28 19:45:25
>>saghm+lZ2
The one created for google+ is usually listed first. After signing into my google account on a new device, the google+ one is also the one that I'm usually automatically signed into.
80. comman+Rw3[view] [source] 2024-08-28 19:47:31
>>silver+(OP)
> pictures of women whose nipples were obviously showing

Oh man, my wife would get so mad at me when she saw me scrolling through Facebook and I'd tell her I didn't pick this feed. I did finally get it to stop.

◧◩◪◨
81. wwwest+R64[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-08-28 23:53:52
>>stavro+u42
Isn’t that what “unfollow” is on FB (stay “friends” but they don’t influence your feed)?
replies(1): >>stavro+574
◧◩◪◨⬒
82. stavro+574[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-08-28 23:55:52
>>wwwest+R64
It is, but now it shows me random groups for me to "join" and there's no way to remove those.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
83. throwa+0F4[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-08-29 06:01:15
>>stavro+eG2
This is like complaining that a blog site shows you blog posts. It's made for this purpose, not yours. Using it is your choice - don't.
◧◩
84. JackMo+tR4[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-08-29 08:28:52
>>xnx+yD2
Lemmy exists.

Lemmy.world is fine social media site. One could just host their own private instance for friends and family.

◧◩◪
85. code_d+qc5[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-08-29 11:56:22
>>Dalewy+Hv1
They were people I was connected to as part of my line of trade.
◧◩◪◨⬒
86. code_d+Pc5[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-08-29 11:59:54
>>Dalewy+og2
FB has an entire team of very well paid people whose entire job is to tweak this algorithm. Presenting relevant content is the whole concept. I suspect where it goes wrong is chasing “engagement” at all costs despite whether it’s emotionally pleasant to the viewer. FB doesn’t care if I actually like the content they present - just whether it keeps me on the site longer. That is, I believe, a poor choice since, at least in my case, it led me to stop using their service.
◧◩◪◨⬒
87. Zak+Fi5[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-08-29 12:47:54
>>pjc50+762
> limiting people to exactly one offsite link per account which may not be to onlyfans

I think this has more to do with Instagram wanting people to stay on Instagram than discouraging sex workers. I'm guessing there's a long list of things the offsite link isn't allowed to be aside from porn. Hate groups and gambling sites come to mind.

88. fennec+Yr5[view] [source] 2024-08-29 13:54:23
>>silver+(OP)
Yes lowest common denominator but also the average I guess.

You see scantily clad women promoted cause many slavering str8 guys actually do frequently click on stuff like that.

Definitely you'll see that our baser instincts and emotions are taken advantage of way more often; sex, anger/outrage, desire/jealousy.

It's no wonder that "watch this super wealthy person show off their wife/cars/house/yacht" is so damn popular.

◧◩◪
89. Enigma+8fi[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-09-03 22:35:28
>>Nursie+Sv1
Oh, I see now that if I scroll down it starts to include short videos and ads and random crap. I don't pay attention to that, probably because it's clearly nothing personally relevant to me and just lowest-common-denominator internet drivel. If I'm typing in facebook.com, the first thing I do is click on one of the groups I'm in, marketplace, or messages.
[go to top]