"There’s this sort of unspoken rule of community on YouTube, that like we’re all having this same experience together — we’re all watching the same video. That is what makes it a cultural phenomenon is that we all saw the same thing […] so letting people put up two or three different videos of the same thing at the same time kind of fundamentally breaks that, which doesn't feel right."
----------------
It's going to be awkward if you share a youtube link with somebody and what they see is significantly different from what you saw, perhaps even to the point of them replying, "Why on Earth did you send this to me? Are you on crack?"
More importantly, this will almost inevitably lead to content creators being given the ability to not just randomly A/B test versions of a video, but produce different versions of the same video that are shown to users based on their data.
e.g. Shania Twain used to produce different versions of her albums with different instrumentation based on which section of the music store they'd be sold in. There was a Country version for the Country section and a Rock version for the Rock section. She's still bootin' around today, so she could produce different versions of music videos targeting users based on whether Google thinks they like Rock or Country more. This would be relatively harmless, although one might be surprised by the version that appears on a friend's phone.
Musical taste isn't what really divides people these days. What might content creators do if they could show different videos to people based on their political views? This might be good for their business, but it undermines objective reality. People would be shown different "facts" based on their beliefs. This is precisely the opposite of what needs to happen to reduce political polarization and bring people closer together. A common reality is necessary for society to function.
Can't be exposing people to ideas that under-radicalize them, they might go somewhere else. We are worried that AI is going to destroy society when ad companies are already well on their way. Attention at any cost.
We have just gone too far with engagement maximising. A/B testing titles and thumbnails was probably too far but we just keep going. At some point society needs to say stop, tech is addictive enough. We maximised way beyond what was reasonable and we need to wind it back.
Give Google, Meta and the rest an award showing they beat human psychology and now we can encorage people to put the phone down and go outside again.
> We have just gone too far with engagement maximising.
Data-driven optimization in general, and not just when it comes to things like "online content".
Like, it certainly benefits us to a certain point, but after a while it starts to create fragile systems and we're getting deep into the fragile systems phase.
See: the complete breakdown of the supply chains of just about everything, algorithmic price discovery contributing to out of control inflation, etc. This is beginning to impact nearly every aspect of our lives and IMO rarely in a good way.
"We" have not gone anywhere. The rise of tiktok is a clear example that the network effects of the social giants are not strong enough to keep competition away. This is what the market demands.
The market also demands meth and all kinds of things that are bad for people. It's time to seriously treat social media like the drug it is and ban all addiction mechanics.
Algorithmic recommendation engines, infinite scrolling, notifications for suggested posts, daily rewards, all of it needs to be banned.
Any lever by which it was once possible to impose "stop" is now completely bought and paid for many times over in the US. There is simply no way in which popular sentiment can meaningfully be imposed upon our society.
The US is not the only country here. Australia has made a good first step banning social media for teenagers and now allowing users to turn off feed algorithms. The EU is drafting new laws which ban addiction mechanics in general. So change is happening, but I think we need to go further and faster on this.
The point about political views made me think of a similar situation I hypothesised based on this announcement. Creators using A/B testing to decide which viewpoints most appealed their audience.
Like I can see a video comparing two games getting variations where each option wins, then the creator using A/B test data to decide which of those views most appeals to their audience. Feels like a slightly sad way for creators to literally pander their views to their audience, regardless of their own beliefs on the matter in question.
beloch · · focus · HN ↗
----------------
It's going to be awkward if you share a youtube link with somebody and what they see is significantly different from what you saw, perhaps even to the point of them replying, "Why on Earth did you send this to me? Are you on crack?"
More importantly, this will almost inevitably lead to content creators being given the ability to not just randomly A/B test versions of a video, but produce different versions of the same video that are shown to users based on their data.
e.g. Shania Twain used to produce different versions of her albums with different instrumentation based on which section of the music store they'd be sold in. There was a Country version for the Country section and a Rock version for the Rock section. She's still bootin' around today, so she could produce different versions of music videos targeting users based on whether Google thinks they like Rock or Country more. This would be relatively harmless, although one might be surprised by the version that appears on a friend's phone.
Musical taste isn't what really divides people these days. What might content creators do if they could show different videos to people based on their political views? This might be good for their business, but it undermines objective reality. People would be shown different "facts" based on their beliefs. This is precisely the opposite of what needs to happen to reduce political polarization and bring people closer together. A common reality is necessary for society to function.
doginasuit · · focus · HN ↗
SchemaLoad · · focus · HN ↗
Give Google, Meta and the rest an award showing they beat human psychology and now we can encorage people to put the phone down and go outside again.
georgemcbay · · focus · HN ↗
Data-driven optimization in general, and not just when it comes to things like "online content".
Like, it certainly benefits us to a certain point, but after a while it starts to create fragile systems and we're getting deep into the fragile systems phase.
See: the complete breakdown of the supply chains of just about everything, algorithmic price discovery contributing to out of control inflation, etc. This is beginning to impact nearly every aspect of our lives and IMO rarely in a good way.
jocaal · · focus · HN ↗
SchemaLoad · · focus · HN ↗
Algorithmic recommendation engines, infinite scrolling, notifications for suggested posts, daily rewards, all of it needs to be banned.
hn_submit · · focus · HN ↗
sicktriple · · focus · HN ↗
SchemaLoad · · focus · HN ↗
CM30 · · focus · HN ↗
Like I can see a video comparing two games getting variations where each option wins, then the creator using A/B test data to decide which of those views most appeals to their audience. Feels like a slightly sad way for creators to literally pander their views to their audience, regardless of their own beliefs on the matter in question.