upvote

points

by comboy6 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby tock6 hours ago|
[-]
> tiktok as some weaponized addiction machine

It is.

> Is it really bad to give me woodworking and learning chinese videos if that's what I'm interested in at the moment?

Youtube shorts is pretty similar to tiktok imo.

> is it really different if he scrolls through tiktok or watches the same thing put into longer videos on TV or some other site?

Yes because TV is just stuff shown to everyone. You aren't getting personalised content.

> Should we ban bikes if they are the most efficient transportation mode in given area because people get addicted to them?

Do people get addicted to bikes? People do get addicted to drugs. Maybe we should ban drugs? Oh wait we do.

reply
upvoteby comboy5 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
People do get addicted to bikes. Not even questionable. But of course that's not a charitable interpretation, and on that - yes I don't think personalized content is comparable to heroin. What is so evil about personalized content?

I'm sincerely trying to understand. Your whole argument here is based on the premise that TV is OK because it's not personalized.

reply
upvoteby tock5 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Yes my entire argument is that recommendation algorithms are designed to cause addiction. Some incredibly smart people have been working on this and they have succeeded wildly. And without personalised content the problem goes away. And that the problem is most acute in short form video platforms like tiktok, instagram shorts and youtube reels. And yes I do consider it closer to drugs than ..... bikes.
reply
upvoteby comboy5 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
OK, but is it a problem if you get recommended repos on github? What I mean that perhaps it's not the good recommendation algorithm that is the problem? It seems like banning tcp/ip because porn is bad.

In China for example (IIRC) below 18 you cannot use these apps past some hour and not above some time limit per day. That seems far from correct solution but seems better than banning it outright and seems to be addressing most concerns.

Personalized content is crucial for functioning information platforms. Imagine if usenet had a single group only. The information sea is vast and the ways to browse and access it seem to only be diminishing. Relaying solely on LLMs outputs does not seem like a safe bet. We've been living off black boxes outputs since altavista, but it's nice to at least have many different black boxes to chose from.

(HN is very much a FYP, it's just that.we like similar stuff)

reply
upvoteby pinnochio5 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Are you a sophist, or have you made any actual attempt to understand the concerns here?
reply
upvoteby comboy5 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Sincerely want to understand it, now that there's more comments it seems I'm not the only one but in minority. Currently most interesting dimension to me is how big part of HN is effectively against open access to information and supporting censorship but of course within this discussion context that's me misrepresenting those people who only want to save lives.

Suriously though, decent part of posters probably were around when WWW was effectively born. Tell me it was not addictive and not full of harmful content. I'm pretty happy it was not banned despite, unlike TV, providing personalized information that you were seeking.

reply