> I feel that people are fed up with the internet for the first time since its creation.<p>At least for a great number of people, I believe this to be true. The things that initially made me interrested in the internet, computers and and software are gone from the mainstream. The web has developed in to a perverted Minitel, it's a place I go to order something, if I can't find it in local stored, I read a little news, I look up documentation, and then I check out again. Much the same for TV really, there's no real reason for me to watch the news, movies and shows. The news is poorly covered and just rehashes of the same reporting. Movies and TV shows are commercialized to the point where I'm not even going to try, on the off chance that I hit something good. The stuff I buy is also often highly selective, as the chance of buying juke is at an al time high, better to buy nothing.<p>I feel like we're close to a major reset, at least for a portion of the population. Many simply can't stand sad state of algorithms, shareholder interests, subscriptions and just pure greed at the expense of everything else. If the reset isn't going to be society wide (which it probably isn't because a large part of the population also seem to not give a shit or they are actively profiting of the current state of affairs), then we're going to see one group quietly distancing themselves from media, technology and modernity. We'll use technology only to the extend where it helps us to our jobs and function in society, taking care to not compromise our humanity, then log right back off.<p>The original author escapes me, but the quote: "The future has lost it's appeal to me" seem increasingly true with every passing day.
I'm surprised there isn't a politician who makes this their brand. I would vote for them even if they didn't want to do anything else.<p>The politicians only talk about regulating content, instead of regulating the algorithm. An error across all dimensions - politically, pragmatically, legally.<p>I would do these 2 things:<p>(1) ban all recommendation engines in social media, no boosting by likes, no retweets, no "for you", no "suggested". you get a chronological feed of people you follow, or you search for it directly.<p>(2) ban all likes/upvotes showing up on public posts, to reduce the incentive for people to engage in combat on politically charged topics<p>No impact on free speech, everyone still has a voice. No political favoritism. No privacy violations.<p>I would bet only these tweaks will significantly reduce extremism and unhappiness in society.
This is something I've personally explored and lightly researched. I think the general population generally prefers recommendation algorithms (they espouse how great _their_ for-you page is on tik-tok or how spotify suggests the best music).<p>You would also be combating against ad and social media companies with extremely deep pockets. You have to keep in mind that algorithmic sorting also would impact search engines like Google and a ton of shopping websites.<p>I personally think the way this has to be done is something more fundamental and "grassroots-like". Similar to how a significant chunk of the internet are against "AI content" I think that same group of people need to be shown that this algorithmic recommendation brainrot is impacting society considerably.<p>edit: To take this point further, as an American, I have been wondering why people would disagree on basic principals or what feels like facts. The problem is that their online experience is completely different than mine. No two people share an exact same home page for any service. How are you supposed to get on the same page as someone when they live in a practically different world than you?
> I think the general population generally prefers recommendation algorithms<p>Not really. It's a dopamine addiction, like a gambling addict 'preferring' that a casino is nearby. But they know it makes them miserable. That's why people would pay money to quit.<p><a href="https://reporter.anu.edu.au/all-stories/would-you-pay-to-quit-tiktok-and-instagram-youd-be-surprised-how-many-would?utm_source=chatgpt.com" rel="nofollow">https://reporter.anu.edu.au/all-stories/would-you-pay-to-qui...</a><p>What other product would people pay to not use? Only products that harm you.<p>I'm counting on a European country or Australia to try first, where the social media companies don't have much influence.
> That's why people would pay money to quit.<p>That's not really what the survey said. In fact, it found that the overwhelming majority of users would pay good money to continue using those platforms.<p>> The answers suggest users value these platforms a lot, on average by US$59 per month for TikTok and $47 for Instagram. An overwhelming 93 per cent of TikTok users and 86 per cent of Instagram users would be prepared to pay something to stay on them.<p>$59/month was the average claim for how much they'd pay to stay on TikTok.<p>They even cite other studies that came up with similar numbers, so it's not a fluke.<p>The part about paying to be off of them was about a hypothetical scenario where everyone on their campus agreed to some deal where they all stopped using one of the platforms together at the same time.<p>That's how they arrived at those weird numbers for paying to quit <i>as a group</i>. Like all studies that ask hypothetical questions about how much people would pay for some outcome, the real world value is always less. When you start introducing impossible constraints like "everyone else would quit" it becomes even more disconnected from reality.
I definitely don't disagree there! I think I am on the same page as you as far as goals. I just am unfortunately a bit more jaded and pessimistic about the unending reach of these platforms.
Given the makeup of the courts is the US, I can't help but imagine these hypothetical laws would be thrown out on first amendment grounds. Viz. "Our algorithm is our free speech"
Both 1 and 2 will simply incentivize people to make fake accounts or pay existing account holders to post for them.
I think 1 and 2 will destroy social media as a frenetic place where everyone is competing for attention. It will become boring without all the battles, pile-ons, gore and porn being shoved in your face. People will sometimes check in to see what Obama said. That's about it. At least that's my hope.
> (1) ban all recommendation engines in social media, no boosting by likes, no retweets, no "for you", no "suggested". you get a chronological feed of people you follow, or you search for it directly.<p>I always find these comments interesting on Hacker News. The Hacker News front page is a socially sourced recommendation engine which presents stories in an algorithmic feed, as boosted by likes (upvotes) from other users. The comment section where we're talking is also social at it's core, with comments boosted or driven down by upvotes and downvotes.<p>In your proposed regulation, are you really expecting that the Hacker News front page would go away, replaced only by the "new" feed? Or that we'd have to manually sign up to follow different posters?<p>If we have to sign up to follow specific posters, how do you propose we discover them to begin with?<p>Usually when I ask these questions the follow ups involve some definition of social media that excludes Hacker News and other forums that people enjoy.
the hn front page is the same for all users --- on ig, im happy to see my friends' posts, but i really dont need the slurry of palantir-chosen brainrot/racist reels interspersed in there, lol (and that applies to most social media).
> the hn front page is the same for all users<p>Yes, it's an algorithmic feed that treats all active users as your friends. Stories are still boosted by votes, sorted algorithmically, and ordered by an opaque algorithm. It would fall under the ban described above.<p>> on ig, im happy to see my friends' posts, but<p>Yes, but how would that work on HN? You see no stories until you start friending people? How would you discover people if recommendation engines weren't allowed?
i'd say it's less predatory for all users to have the same algorithm. maybe on HN, the userbase is small enough, and the articles generally focused enough, that it'd be less impactful were the algorithm somewhat divergent per user. but on other platforms, rabbitholes appear very quickly, and very inorganically. to be plain, i've liked a number of pro-palestine posts on instagram, and started getting very anti-semitic reels until i hit "not interested" a certain number of times. the algorithm is opaque, but also stupid, and motivated to aggravate me into commenting, scrolling more, etc., to view ads. i don't know if i have a way to categorize HN into "good" and ig/X/... into "bad", to be honest.<p>for what it's worth, discord doesn't really have a user algorithm to get people into certain servers, and yet people are readily radicalized on discord (especially to the far-right, in my experience), but obviously the way people interact on discord is different to social media.
I feel this way. I used to spend so much time online, learning, coding, playing. Through the dot com boom and bust. Through the financial crisis after financial crisis. Web 2.0. Social media.<p>I’ve checked out on pretty much everything except for OSS.<p>I’m looking for land and an RV to start homesteading because I feel like that’s the only thing that will distract me from doom scrolling news.
> I’m looking for land and an RV to start homesteading because I feel like that’s the only thing that will distract me from doom scrolling news.<p>One anecdote: An old acquaintance from college did something like this, more or less. Instead of making her more offline, it made her more bored and more removed from in-person social interactions. It only increased desire to scroll online content.<p>If you really want to be less online, go out into the world with other people and do things. Or even just join an initiative or company where people are working on something together.
I can understand that perspective but I’m divorced, my kids are grown, I have no friends, society sucks, I’d rather be friends with goats.<p>Dogs can keep me company. Land can provide me with things to do. A workshop would supplement the rest. I’m not saying I’ll never go online (YouTube is hard to beat for DIY) but I choose not to participate in the digital online society some call a metaverse. If I build relationships with my neighbors, cool. If not, get off my lawn. I have no desire to “find myself” or “be somebody”.
This is very well said and I've found myself on the same page. I've said this before, but when I was younger the internet was an island of sanity in an otherwise pretty crazy world. Now, the internet broadly is much crazier than the real world and much of the time it's best avoided. This is still a lot of great content on the internet, but always right next to it is something addictive, outrageous, manipulative, etc. attempting to steal your attention and waste your time. People with better impulse control might be able to avoid this in an effortless way, but that's not me.<p>Abstaining is really the only thing that's been working for me, and all I'm going to try to do is abstain more. It's clear that my old refuge has been destroyed by greed and misanthropy, and the only path for me is to abandon the refuge as much as possible.
> To get away from algorithms, away from being locked in and dependent on the platform, away from big tech chasing our attention, back to real connections as opposed to losing our followers with the Death of the Follower. We need open platforms such as Open Social Media and an open web<p>Nah. We need move back to the <i>real world</i> being the <i>destination</i> instead of the screen. If the technology is not augmenting your life in meatspace, it's slowly robbing you of your somatic experience and turning you into something more machine-like. Doesn't matter whether the technology is open web or proprietary, the effect is the same.
I think I disagree, if I understand you correctly.<p>Technology <i>is</i> augmenting real world experiences all the time, and not always in positive ways.<p>Whenever anyone does anything with the real world as the destination, the phone comes too, and all that comes with the phone intersects with whatever it is you're doing. Again not always in positive ways.<p>I completely agree that the nature of the technology / platform doesn't matter or affect this.
How are you disagreeing? I think your point is separate?<p>Poster above is making a claim about what brings us into our body-experiences, or what takes us out. Technically mostly noting that technology takes us out of the somatic experience.<p>Accessibility? Meditation apps? There are things with technology that allow us to be more connected with each other and ourselves in some ways. But not really to the somatic experience of their body, the world around them.<p>Generally if I understand OP correctly, I strongly agree. As a techie it took me a long time to understand the somatic experience as the missing part to my world view and thinking.
It’s frustrating to me to see this article promote Bluesky. Both Bluesky and Mastadon can lead to the same negativity, mental health issues, and addiction and misery and so on as all of the other social media platforms.<p>Maybe the Bluesky and Mastadon algorithms are or are not as addiction producing as Twitter or Facebook. I don’t know. But the harms are still there.
I agree. I was optimistic that one of Bluesky, Mastodon, or Threads would emerge as a better version of Twitter without the problems, but that hasn't been the case for me. In fact, a lot of the people I followed who migrated to those platforms have seemingly spiraled deeper into negativity and doom on those platforms.<p>One person I followed described Bluesky as the place to go if you want to be viciously attacked and torn apart by people who 98% agree with what you're saying.
this feels incomplete without mentioning why everything is trying to keep our attention: paid digital advertisement. remove the incentive for the slopfest and “the algorithm” becomes far less of a problem (see HackerNews)
HN (i.e. crowd sourced ranking) is different from algorithm feeds. It doesn't try to show you things to match your interests, feed is the same for all users. This makes a big difference.
The real difference is the quality of the moderation. A global feed is terrible if it can be gamed.
From the way HN's moderators describe their own actions, there's very little active input to what shows up on the front page.<p>The stories shown are determined by user input (upvotes and flags). Moderators tend to rescue stories that are excessively flagged and there's also the second-chance queue, but I don't believe they're actively picking winners and losers on the front page.<p>Also, the HN global feed is heavily gamed. It's very common practice for startups to organize voting rings to front-page their latest blog post or new product announcement. The simple attempts are caught, but it's common information in the startup world about how to organize group voting efforts to tip a story on to the front page without triggering the voting ring detector too much.
the HN feed is an algorithm. YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, etc. also all include “crowd sourced ranking” in their algorithms<p>the difference is the incentive (what the algorithm is optimized for). in most of these feeds it’s for ad revenue, hence the results
Just saying paid digital advertisement feels incomplete without mentioning why digital advertisement exists: most of the public would refuse to pay for services they take for granted such as email services, social media, etc at a level enough that companies would not feel compelled to sell out to third party advertisers. The struggles of Medium exemplify this very well. Ads are like the processed meat of our internet diet.
No. It has been proven by now that even if the public DOES pay, the advertising offers another channel of revenue, which executives loathe to ignore.
Source?
<< Source<p>Eh. Sure, lets start at Netflix as a the edge of streaming wars for a quick example:<p><a href="https://nscreenmedia.com/netflix-ad-values-5-dollar-increase/" rel="nofollow">https://nscreenmedia.com/netflix-ad-values-5-dollar-increase...</a>
<a href="https://nypost.com/2025/12/12/entertainment/streamers-are-rising-prices-at-an-astonishing-rate-heres-how-much-more-youre-paying/" rel="nofollow">https://nypost.com/2025/12/12/entertainment/streamers-are-ri...</a>
<a href="https://deadline.com/2024/10/netflix-price-hikes-executives-q3-earnings-call-1236119418/" rel="nofollow">https://deadline.com/2024/10/netflix-price-hikes-executives-...</a><p>I would like then point to exec statement in last one:<p>“Our approach to pricing has been remarkably consistent over many, many years,” Co-CEO Greg Peters said. “Our core theory is, we’ve got to work really, really hard to make sure we are delivering more value to members every quarter. Then, we assess based on how that’s going, through metrics like engagement, acquisition and retention, did we do a good job there? How we actually deliver that promise of more value. If we do, then we occasionally ask members to pay a bit more, so we can invest that forward and keep that whole process going.”<p>I don't have use my corporate to human translator machine..
The Internet was fine in the time where passionate people paid a few dollars for webspace to host their made with notepad best viewed at 640x480 site and didn’t expect „passive income“ from it.
block google tracking and search history (minor downside for a major gain). Disable the youtube homepage. Use services that keep out as much trackers as possible: duckduckgo (you can still use google with !g), an email that's not google, a browser that's not chrome. All this reduces the algorithms power over your choices.<p>Use social networks in a healthy way: avoid scrolling on the home/main page. Search for the information you want yourself and don't rely on what's handed to you. This works in general, TV, papers, ...
I prefer “rare” to “well-done” — in steak, and in life.<p>Algorithms tend to optimize us toward well-being as “well-done”: predictable, consistent, uniformly cooked.
Safe, measurable, repeatable.<p>But human experience is closer to “rare”:
uneven, risky, asymmetric, and still alive.
The parts that matter most are often the ones that don’t fit cleanly into metrics.<p>If everything becomes optimized, nothing remains interesting.
And more importantly, we risk replacing well-being with the monitoring of well-being.<p>When a life is constantly optimized, scored, nudged, and corrected,
it gradually stops being a life that is actually experienced.
> With the AI slop being promoted on the major social media platform’s algorithm, I believe we will go back to following real humans. Back to followers, where we decide who we want to see.<p>This is a nice thought but I think it's wrong. If TikTok, Instagram Reels or YouTube Shorts have proven anything, it's that people don't want to <i>decide</i> they want to <i>consume</i>. It's cynical but it's what the data has shown time and again works for these platforms. Passive consumption is easier for the user and companies know it keeps us online longer.<p>When you ask people, they will say they want to see who they follow but their behaviour, incentivised by companies, says otherwise.
It is funny that people on <i>Hackernews</i> are (acting as if they were) against algorithmic feeds. This very site is one of the trailblazers that found out how much people prefer algorithmic feeds to chronological ones.
I think you'll find that people who are against algo-feeds are against that being the only choice.
In what sense is HN an algorithmic feed? It is neither <i>personalised</i> nor does it have a significant discretionary boost beyond "age" and "upvotes". It's <i>qualitatively</i> a different thing.
Sort by weighted upvotes vs time decay is an algorithm. You can review the psedocode here: <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1781013">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1781013</a><p>Note that there is also "censorship" (!) - `gag_factor` - even in this free thought paradise. The lesson is that no matter your scale, suppressing certain content is <i>necessary</i> to prevent low quality posts and spam from turning your site into a swamp.<p>Correct, it is not personalized. So we need a different word than 'algorithmic'. People keep saying that word when they want to "ban" a certain kind of math. But they should at least be particular about what they don't like (sort <i>your</i> friends' posts chronologically is <i>also</i> a personalized algorithm, after all..)
On its own an algorithmic feed is fine. Automatically give people what they want to see. Like TV without flipping channels.<p>It just turned into something out of control with unintended side effects and immoral goals.
Perhaps it's a bit like people preferring snacking to a home-cooked meal. At the end of a long day it's nice to be effortlessly entertained, but you can't have <i>just</i> bite-sized experiences. At some point you need to go deeper, to be creative, to chip in.
<< It's cynical but<p>But is it cynical if it is accurate.
I want to vent about the way the word "algorithm" is increasingly used as shorthand for AI-driven, attention-sucking systems.<p>"Algorithm" is a beautiful and very old word. Long before recommender systems and engagement metrics, it meant precise problem-solving methods. Quicksort is an algorithm. Binary search is an algorithm. GCD is an algorithm. Most of modern technology exists because of algorithms in this broader, richer sense. It is one of the foundations of CS.<p>Yes, machine-learning systems are also algorithms. But collapsing the term to mean only opaque, attention-maximizing mechanisms strips it of its meaning and history. It taints a neutral technical concept as something manipulative by default.<p>It's more so disappointing when this comes from people in tech. We should be more careful with our vocabulary. Maybe we should call these systems what they are. Maybe "engagement engines", "recommender systems", or "attention-suckers" instead of letting one narrow and disturbing use redefine the word altogether.
On the topic of ads on the web: can someone confirm they provide any positive ROI at all? Not once an ad was ever relevant, and I have clicked one maybe once or twice in my life.
It helped me find mobile games that were fun.
Before the current shiny thing replaced it, a whole generation of tech labor was wasted on ad tech. 20 years in, if it wasn't worth the investment I'd hope all the data engineering and data science would have surfaced that.
i'm probably using an informal fallacy but if online advertisers earn hundreds of billions of dollars, someone must be finding some return on their investment.<p>i might be wrong, it might just be a huge grift, but i dont know how to come to that conclusion
I know this is unrelated but the title reminded me of the great book.<p><pre><code> Algorithms to Live By: The Computer Science of Human Decisions
Book by Brian Christian, Thomas L. Griffiths, and Tom Griffiths</code></pre>