this post was submitted on 11 May 2025
1202 points (99.2% liked)

Comic Strips

16797 readers
2124 users here now

Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.

The rules are simple:

Web of links

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] A_norny_mousse@feddit.org 93 points 2 weeks ago (6 children)

I still blame the algorithms. Angry people click more => let's assure they always get more to click.

[–] Sixtyforce@sh.itjust.works 27 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

It's the for profit corporate capture really. When everyone started thinking of the internet as 5 websites and their bank.

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 23 points 2 weeks ago

I remember when people would get seriously angry if you posted commercial speech in a communal area of the Internet.

[–] Zacryon@feddit.org 8 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

You've misspelled capitalism.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

It's a gray line, as the drive for celebrity isn't strictly capitalist but is definitely rewarded under capitalism.

[–] WhiskyTangoFoxtrot@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago

Anything bad == capitalism.

[–] Zacryon@feddit.org 3 points 2 weeks ago

I meant "the algorithm", that the parent comment mentions. Designing an algorithm that is driven by clickrate in order to gain more ad revenue is motivated by capitalistic forces.

[–] Katana314@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

I highly doubt a social network would ever lack incentive for increased engagement (via shock value and toxicity or otherwise) in a non-capitalist society.

They may gain popularity, societal influence, or whatever else instead of money. They’re still motivated to deepen that connection.

[–] LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Why don't people affected by algos just choose not to use them? I don't use any content-feeding algorithms beyond basic non-personalized sorting functions that I can examine the code of myself if I wish as here on Lemmy.

But people don't want that, or they'd be on Lemmy, Mastodon etc. People don't even use the subscriptions page on YouTube, they prefer the algorithms, they don't like having agency and they don't like making decisions. Some people even use shuffle on just algo suggested songs on Spotify.

Many yet, pay with their time via choosing to hear and see ads for this privilege.

Some even pay money for renting algorithmic digital slop. Every time Netflix raises prices, the subscriptions increase. People love the boot.

So aren't people to blame?

[–] bathing_in_bismuth@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Do you have any experience with creating a digital good and dealing with end-users?

[–] LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Honestly no, not at all - why?

[–] ShadowRam@fedia.io 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Can we tackle the root cause (advertising) somehow?

If there's no incentive to farm clicks, maybe the circlejerk could stop.

[–] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 11 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

The root cause is billionaires.

There’s no stopping trolls completely, but they were self limiting when the internet was more disaggregated and a little less accessible. It’s greedy Big Tech, led by a few people, that weaponized them into world-scale attention farms.

Advertising is a huge enabler yeah, but I have to wonder if they could’ve leveraged other schemes back then, like the Patreon/Onlyfans model, crypto, or whatever.

[–] excral@feddit.org 1 points 2 weeks ago

Yes and no, the main factor are bubbles. Even for the most asshole opinions you can probably find the right bubble where you aren't shunned for it but get affirming reactions. Algorithms do significantly ease the formation of bubbles but are ultimately not required for it

[–] untakenusername@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 weeks ago

im chill with algoithms as long as theyre FOSS and don't manipulate people