this post was submitted on 29 Aug 2026
338 points (98.6% liked)

Technology

87695 readers
3976 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] NoTagBacks@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Y'all, this is one of those articles worth reading right quick. The title is... well, bad. They were looking more at the "quality" rather than quantity of social media usage. The findings were more about the reinforcement of the user's state rather than social media itself being bad. Sure, the algorithm will push things, but your algorithm is primarily gonna push what it needs to keep you engaged with itself, and what you engage with will be influenced by your state of mind/mood. If you're already depressed, you're probably gonna reinforce that via the algorithm. Same deal with positive outlooks. Neuroplasticity and all that.

The researchers also bring up a good point about calling into question the recommendation to limit the amount of time on social media with the idea of mitigating the negative effects. Much like [alcohol] prohibition in the US, a ban on social media usage does nothing to teach us a more wise and healthy approach, nor is it something realistic for the general population.

In fact, if we practice abstention in such a way, those that would use it for malignant purposes would make it worse. I think a good example of that is cryptocurrency. Crypto isn't inherently bad, but boy did it get super maligned by any left-leaning space. There are plenty of useful things we could do with crypto, especially now with the hostile behavior of many currency-issuing states, but since crypto was mostly abandoned by leftist spaces, scams, commodification, speculation, and other hyper-capitalist bullshit abounds in the crypto space.

Do we really want to cede the further development of social media to malignant dickheads via unwitting abstention? Or will we take the time to actually learn how to wisely approach the tools we have right in front of us?

[–] MangoCats@feddit.it 1 points 21 hours ago

Crypto isn’t inherently bad, but boy did it get super maligned by any left-leaning space.

Crypto isn't inherently bad, deceptive pump and dump / Ponzi schemes generally are considered to be bad by those not on the receiving end of the bulk of the funds.

At its outset, I thought it was the left-leaning (non-conservative) spaces that were religiously championing crypto for its' subversion of the financial industry. Of course it wasn't long before the financial industry and traditional grifters learned how to turn Crypto to their usual tricks as a new source of income...

Do we really want to cede the further development of social media to malignant dickheads

If you haven't noticed, a lot of people who have a lot of money/power are malignant dickheads, and putting SM-A backed by their type up against SM-B promoted by the "fairness to all, don't hurt anybody" crowd, which one do you think is going to corner 90%+ of the market share: A or B? B just doesn't have the promotional juice (cash) to compete for mindshare.

[–] sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Howabout this:

All social media algorithms that direct content flow to users are required to be open source, in perpetuity, at least for viewing, so that actual unbiased folks can audit them. Maybe make a new liscense class for this, if need be, so companies can still own the code, but it just has to be publically reviewable.

Would you install blackbox code on your pc?

Well, would you let a blackbox determine what information is fed into your own brain?

Mandate systemic transparency.

[–] martti@suppo.fi 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

That's what Pirate parties advocate for, actually. They do seem to gain back in popularity with the chat control proposal. Problem of the mainstream left parties is that they heavily underrate importance of free software. Underrate to the level of buying iphones, macbooks, subscriptions and so forth. Pirate parties are actually nice step to secure privacy of left-activists in the neoliberal future.

[–] sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

I did not know that, but that entirely makes sense.

I'm American; if we had a 'pirate party' type party, it would be considered a terrorist organization by our pedophile president and his cult of closeted christian racist theocrat morons.

But uh yeah... world economy and society broadly is hugely run by tech and tech companies, you'd think a more nuanced and informed discussion about tech law and policy would accompany that... but nope!

[–] martti@suppo.fi 1 points 23 hours ago

There are Pirate Parties in U.S and Canada. Yet U.S politics are bad asf.