I think we want algorithmic feeds, we just want humane ones instead of adversarial ones. Give me a feed that prioritizes close friends and family first, important milestones over trivialities, impactful news over ragebait. Give me a highly curated version of Reddit with HN quality moderation. Most people would be very happy with that, but it runs counter to the advertising incentives and engagement metrics which drive the industry.
As with all things, the root of the issue is the incentive structure. Once again, we see the incentive of limitless growth and capital accumulation at all costs turns out to be harmful, actually. Waow.
> see the incentive of limitless growth and capital accumulation at all costs turns out to be harmful, actually
One of the most harmful effects of the accumulation of capital is the accumulation of political power that accompanies it. We need aggressively limit the power that can be gained that way.
It's not clear if the profit motive alone explains it. I think a huge difference between the social media business model and most other profit incentivized enterprises is that because most it is free to use, customers pay with attention. Methinks there is most overlap between the attention getting parts and the harmful parts of recommendation algorithms.
> Once again, we see the incentive of limitless growth and capital accumulation at all costs turns out to be harmful, actually.
My dad's village in Bangladesh doesn't incentivize either growth or capital accumulation. They also don't have any problem with social media. Do you want to go live there?
Have you considered colonial revenue extraction, oppressive tariffs and following famines over centruries might have contributed in exactly the way you attempt to refute?
They were living the same way prior to colonialism.
Your argument ironically refutes the original point. The bad thing colonization did to Bengal was prevent “pursuit of growth and capital accumulation.” The tariffs and restraints on free trade were the real culprit.[1] The people in Bengal weren’t poorer than they were before colonization. Bengal’s GDP per capita was about the same in 1700 as in 1900. The real problem is that Bengal missed out on all the profits from capitalism that they could have enjoyed had they been allowed to trade freely with other countries. So England went from being twice as rich per capita as Bengal, before colonization, to being more than 10 times as rich at the time of independence.
My dad’s village was a lovely socialist utopia. Rice farming requires a high level of communalism. During religious holidays, the community comes together and pools their resources has feasts for the whole village. Villages like that post videos of it on Youtube, it’s very charming: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rf9x_YZwE5c
[1] Direct revenue extraction was relatively low, and the famines were structural in the region for thousands of years.
> Your argument ironically refutes the original point.
Only if assuming that colonialism is distinct from capitalism. And if not, your original comparison is not applicable.
You edited your comment, but reversed your argument from citing a poor Bengal village as an example of a society that "doesn't incentivize growth" to an argument that the colonization tragedy was that they prevented growth instead.
> So England went from being twice as rich per capita as Bengal, before colonization, to being more than 10 times as rich at the time of independence.
Are you arguing that England was successful due to capitalism or colonialism, or something else?
> Direct revenue extraction was relatively low
First off, "relatively low" is doing some heavy lifting here. Further, "Direct" ignores the direct extraction from the land taxes being used (indirect) to buy commodities in turn exported to Europe, meaning Bengal paid for the privilege of giving away local resources.
> and the famines were structural in the region for thousands of years.
EIC maintained tax collection and grain hoarding during the 1770 Bengal famine, leading to tax revenues in 1771 that were actually higher than in 1768 despite millions dying.
The regional risks were historically mitigated with tax remissions, taccavi, and royal grain stores.
I'm perfectly fine with growth and capital accumulation, given who's accumulating it and how much.
Capitalists love to pretend socialism is when everyone lives in a hut. Do you think 19th and early 20th century socialist movements were about convincing workers to live in Namibia?
You and I would be very happy with that, but you and I are not most people.
Most people like the addictive garbage, and they reward the systems that feed it to them. That’s why every surviving platform has gone that way, and why any new attempt to do better always fails.
