Down the YouTube Rabbit Hole

7

October

2020

5/5 (1)

 

Over the past few weeks, a lot has been said (including on this blog) about how social media has been impacting the offline world in a negative way. After watching “The Social Dilemma”, which launched on Netflix last September, we started to think about how these platforms are selling our attention as a commodity and leading to an increasingly polarized society, harming democracies around the world. Some people decided to take it one step further and deleted accounts, turned off notifications and stopped clicking on recommended content – just as suggested in the documentary by the whistleblowers who helped creating these platforms. I was one of those people – until I wasn’t anymore!

Interestingly enough, shortly after watching the documentary I started to receive tons of recommendation of content that addressed the same issues, especially on YouTube and Facebook. Isn’t it funny how the algorithm can work against itself? In the beginning, I was decided not to click on any of the suggested videos even though the content seemed quite interesting. Instead, I decided to do my own research on topics such as data privacy, surveillance capitalism or ethical concerns when designing technology. However, the more research I would do the more recommendations I would get – unexpected, uh?

So, one lazy Sunday afternoon I gave in to temptation and clicked on a video that was recommended to me by YouTube – it was a really interesting Ted Talk by techno-sociologist Zeynep Tufekci, which dug a little deeper into some of the question raised in “The Social Dilemma”. Needless to say, one hour later I had already watched 5 more Tedtalks – I admit it, I felt into the Youtube Rabbit Hole!

However, I cannot say that I regret my decision as I gained really interesting insights from these recommendations. After all, that’s how this recommendation system is supposed to work, right? In particular, I was a able to find some answers to a question that had been in my mind for a while: “But what can we do to stop the negative effects of social media while still valuing freedom of speech as a pillar of the internet?”

Even though a lot has been said about the threats arising from the widespread use of social media, I haven’t come across tangible solutions for this issue. Sure, we can turn notifications off, but that won’t tackle the problem at its core! But in two very enlightening Ted Talks by Claire Wardle (misinformation expert) and Yasmin Green (research director a unit of Alphabet focused on solving global security challenges through technology) I was able to find some clarity. According to them, there are three areas that we can act upon to create a better digital and physical world:

  • Tech Companies – first of all, if any advances are going to be made, we need technology platforms to be on board. As an eternal optimist, I do believe that tech leaders are aware of the challenges they face and are certainly trying to find solutions. As Yasmeen Green explains, Google already successfully developed what they called the “Redirect Method”, which targeted people who made searched related to joining terrorist groups. For example, when a Google search about extremist content was made the first result would be an add inviting them to watch a video about more moderate content. Furthermore, the targeting would not be made based on the user profile, but on the specific question that was asked. What if we could use the “Redirect Method” to stop the spread of conspiracies theories or misinformation about climate change? It would be great for society, although probably not so profitable for the tech giants ?
  • Governments – Although tech companies have their fair share of responsibilities, at the moment they are “grading their own homework” and regulating themselves, making it impossible for us to know if interventions are working. That’s where governments come in place. But a challenge this big doesn’t simply call on local or even national regulators. What we really need is global response to regulate the information ecosystem. Or, as Brad Smith (Microsoft’s President) puts it, we need a “Digital Geneva Convention” that holds tech platforms accountable and prevents coordinated social attacks on democracy.
  • We the People – While we would love to place our hopes on Governments to solve this situation for us, it is undeniable that most lawmakers are struggling to keep up with a rapidly changing digital world. From time to time, a US Senate Committee investigating tech companies will originate a few memes as we see that lawmakers have a difficult time understanding what they’re talking about – I will leave you my favorite down below! That’s why we need to take the matter into our own hands and a way to do it is, as Claire Wardle puts it “donate our social data to science”. Millions of datapoints on us are already collected by social media platforms anyway, but what if we could use them to develop a sort of centralized open repository of anonymized data, built on the basis of privacy and ethical concerns? This would create transparency and allow technologists, journalists, academics and society as a whole to better understand the implications of our digital lives.

Overall, I recognize that these solutions are not perfect or complete. But I do believe that they provide a starting point to “build technology as human as the problems we want to solve”.

 

 

Sources

Smith, B., 2017. The Need For A Digital Geneva Convention – Microsoft On The Issues. [online] Microsoft on the Issues. Available at: www.blogs.microsoft.com [Accessed 6 October 2020].

Shead, S., 2020. Netflix Documentary ‘The Social Dilemma’ Prompts Social Media Users to Rethink Facebook, Instagram And Others. [online] CNBC. Available at: www.cnbc.com [Accessed 6 October 2020].

Green, Y., 2018. Transcript Of “How technology can fight extremism and online harassment”. [online] Ted.com. Available at: www.ted.com [Accessed 6 October 2020].

Wardle, C., 2019. Transcript Of “How you can help transform the internet into a place of trust” [online] Ted.com. Available at: www.ted.com [Accessed 6 October 2020].

Tufekci, Z., 2017. Transcript Of “We’re building a dystopia just to make people click in ads” [online] Ted.com. Available at: www.ted.com [Accessed 6 October 2020].

Please rate this

Dating Apps: Blessing or Curse?

6

October

2020

No ratings yet.

Back in 2010, Japan was facing a demographic crisis caused by an alarming decline of birthrates, which were among the lowest in the world. As a response to the crisis, almost all local governments in the country concluded that the best way to bring more babies into the world was to “Play Cupid”. By implementing taxpayer-financed dating programs where young people would get together to speed date, the Japanese authorities were hoping to pair up couples who would later get married and start a family together. However, Fukui – a small town in Western Japan – decided to take it one step further and created an online dating service, becoming the pioneer in government-supported online matchmaking.

Fast forward to today, online dating as become somewhat part of our daily routine and Statista predicts that the online dating market will reach 37.5 million people by 2023 in the US alone. Online platforms such as Tinder, Match.com, e-Harmony, Plenty of Fish or OkCupid, among others; have revolutionized dating by having algorithms search for patterns on how we talk about ourselves and interact with others in order to find “the perfect match” among the enormous pool of users. The advantages of these platforms are several: convenience, approachability, user’s diversity and versatility of formats (some platforms focus on people who are looking for a long-term relationship whereas others cater to an audience looking for short-term arrangements, for example), just to name a few.

Despite the clear benefits, “dating apps fatigue” is increasingly common, especially on people who went on many dates but still haven’t managed to find “the one”. As such, it is important to ask ourselves the question: are dating platforms (and the limitless pool of lovers associated to it) a blessing or a curse?

In order to assess this topic, it important to consider the setbacks of these type of platforms.

First of all, having a really large number of potential partners to choose from is not necessarily optimal. In fact, it can lead to the famous Paradox Of Choice, which states that if we are presented with too many options to choose from, we might get overwhelmed and consequently become less satisfied with the decision -because we keep thinking about the options we missed out on. This was exactly what happened to Barney Stinson, the hopeless womanizer from the famous show “How I met your mother”. In one episode, Barney is seen at a football game with a sign urging women to call him and surprisingly, a lot of them eventually did. At first he is thrilled with the possibilities arising from his phone, but as the episode goes on he gets increasingly irritated because he can’t make up his mind regarding which potential lover to call, ending up throwing his phone in the garbage.

Secondly, modern dating can be described as a marketplace where supply and demand forces interact. With the emergence of online dating platforms, dating turned into a digital market where information is abundant, and the realm of possibilities is gigantic. Additionally, it is possible to filter out characteristics that we do and don’t want in a partner, with matching algorithms taking into account variables as diverse as “hair color” and “interest in medieval history”. Overall, we can say that looking for a partner online is not very different from shopping for a new vacuum cleaner.

Nonetheless, this filtering might not actually be working in our favor because as mathematician Hannah Fry states in her famous TedTalk Mathematics of Love, “Human emotion isn’t neatly ordered and rational and easily predictable”. What this means is that feelings towards another person cannot be explained simply by a set of variables – not to mention that more often than not, our preferences aren’t exactly what we believe them to be.

Thirdly, this digital market for dating brings another problem: potential partners can be considered a commodity. If a date doesn’t go well, it’s alright – there are 20 other possible partners just a swipe away! This particular feature of dating platforms makes it more difficult to users to commit to a particular match, as they know that there might be other matches out there which are even better (again, back to the vacuum cleaner example).

All in all, love (as every human interaction) is complex and it would be foolish to think that it can be boiled down to a secret formula – although algorithms can definitely help! It’s obvious that having more than 3 people your own age to date, like it happened in villages in 16th century Germany, is great. But having so many potential lovers that it’s difficult to choose from probably doesn’t help either.

Will dating apps lead to “Happily Ever After”? Only time will tell!

 

Sources:

Tiffany, K. and Fetters, A., 2020. The ‘Dating Market’ Is Getting Worse. [online] The Atlantic. Available at: www.theatlantic.com[Accessed 6 October 2020].

Yan, S., 2016. The Japanese Government Is Trying To Find Your Perfect Match. [online] CNNMoney. Available at: www.money.cnn.com [Accessed 6 October 2020].

Hanks, V., 2019. How Dating Apps Are Revolutionizing Relationships Today?. [online] Thriveglobal.com. Available at: www.thriveglobal.com [Accessed 6 October 2020].

Fry, H., 2014. The Mathematics Of Love. [online] Ted.com. Available at: www.ted.com/ [Accessed 6 October 2020].

Statista, 2020. Topic: Online Dating In The United States. [online] Statista. Available at: <https://www.statista.com/topics/2158/online-dating/> [Accessed 6 October 2020].

Please rate this