Seven years later, Kyle’s argument is that AirSpace has turned into what he now calls Filterworld, a phrase he uses to describe how algorithmic recommendations have become one of the most dominating forces in culture, and as a result, have pushed society to converge on a kind of soulless sameness in its tastes.
While I appreciate this article and those like it, too many of these types of articles don’t focus enough on the solution. I expected an article titled “how to save” to offer more solutions to what can be done, but that’s mostly left to a single paragraph about being more intentional and thoughtful and “sitting with your own feelings.”
If something isn’t done to actually change the consumerist culture and insidious marketing models and data collection practices, we’ll have another article like this in another few years, like we have had every few years. We were talking about filter bubbles when I was in high school over ten years ago. It’s only gotten worse.
I agree with you on most levels, but I think the author is leaving it more up to developers to develop a site that brings back RSS feeds and newsletters to the masses. That the masses are wanting it, but can’t find it. I would love an RSS reader that is FOSS for firefox for example, it would solve so many issues for a lot of things. All I can find is something like feedly that is essentially doing the same thing showing what they want you specifically to see.
I also think the underlying issues are more about the tastemakers being this ephemeral “they” from the masses which can occasionally be overridden, him talking about the creators knowing exactly when people turn away from their content that can be then “fixed”, and that the homogenized coffee shop is the norm and authenticity is found by the masses and then ruined. It’s a weird flow diagram that is kind of like pre-internet with magazines. Idk, it’s a good conversation regardless if he doesn’t have the answers.
I agree with you on most levels, but I think the author is leaving it more up to developers to develop a site that brings back RSS feeds and newsletters to the masses.
I’ve been mulling over the idea of a Fediverse RSS reader (Feediverse?) that would run alongside other services. Lemmy is a link aggregator and having an RSS reader plug-in on the same instance would make sharing links across pretty seamless.
It would also help address issues like not being able to follow people on Lemmy as you could have a “follow” link that punts the individual’s RSS feed over to the reader.
I would use it in a heartbeat, that would be fantastic.
I don’t know if you read the entire transcript, but I bolded what I think you might want to see:
There’s a real tail wagging the dog element of this where you can want to have a different media diet. I have set up RSS readers many times in the past two years. I used to read all of my news in RSS. I used to sit in school, my laptop open, and not pay attention, and go through my RSS reader, and I remember saying to some of my friends, “I finished the internet today,” because I’d read everything in the RSS reader, and there was a great diversity in content. No one thinks that way anymore. You open an RSS reader, you plug your favorite websites into it — candidly, even ours — and you get a bunch of stuff, and some of that stuff is obviously made for SEO, and some of that stuff is obviously made for other platforms.
And very rarely do you see, “Oh, there’s an audience here that wants to read every article on this website, and that is a package,” but it’s coming back. People want to do that, right? You can see… You have felt that way. I have felt that way. We write articles about RSS readers, and people read them. There’s demand for it. Do you think that demand is ever going to get filled?
I hope so. I tend to think, “Wasn’t the great promise of Silicon Valley and all these tech startups [that] we are going to give users things that they want?” There’s this thirst for a new form of delivery of content, better curation, more holistic ideas of what we should consume, and I hope that products arise to give us that. I think people are restlessly questing for it right now in RSS, in newsletters, in a parasocial podcast video, whatever ecosystem. But I don’t know. I like internet technology, I like when startups do new stuff. I hope that they take on this challenge and figure it out.
I don’t know if you read the entire transcript, but I bolded what I think you might want to see:
Thanks for flagging that up, there is a lot there beyond just RSS readers and I have been merrily noting down bits that touch on my broader concerns. They mention it early on: “the deterioration of the open web” of which the sidelining of RSS readers is a symptom (after Google Reader died, I migrated to Feedly and have tries some FOSS alternatives but it isn’t the same, partly because the Web isn’t the same but also I am wary about going all in on a service that could be bought up and/or die at someone else’s whims. Why I am looking for Fediverse solutions). With the rise of Big Tech and their social media companies, it felt like all the utopian dreams and energy were funneled into walled gardens and, at the time, that seemed an acceptable compromise to help get the waves of new users online with free and convenient platforms available to help ease them into web life. It’s only with the enshittification of social media that it has become clear that it wasn’t worth it.
That’s why I am enthusiastic about the Fediverse as it feels like the more natural evolution of the web - as if some clever soul had come along and looked at all the forums and blogs then asked “what if they could talk to each other?” And it’s good but it could do better and the things they discuss on their are key - curation and allowing people with niche interests to discover each other. I’ve been kicking around a few ideas like this for a while on here (most recently a federated Delicious, Fedilicious, which would integrate well with a Fediverse as the latter pumps content in and the former shares and categorises the various links that get discovered) and am now putting in a bit more focus to take notes as I go. So, in that respect, that article was very useful for thinking more broadly on the issue, and raising RSS readers as a good option (newsletters might have to wait).
If you remember, I’d love it if you kept us posted on the projects. It sounds like you’re on to many somethings.
I would love an RSS reader that is FOSS for firefox for example
I use livemark.
Okay, thanks for the suggestion but I’m kind of clueless when using github for things. It looks like it does what I want, but how would I implement this?
Did you see the link to mozilla addons website? (it’s on the side of the page) , just download it and i think it should be clear how to use it.
Sorry, I didn’t know that was even a thing to look at it.
Yeah that’s very true about RSS readers and FOSS options and the masses not being able to find them very well despite wanting it. Agreed it’s a good quotable conversation to have published. I am just frustrated that we so seldom see talk about what we can do about it, what comes next?
I think we’re in it, the fediverse ran by instances that are more interested in fostering community than making a buck. There is a need and want for new ways to access the internet, the fediverse is one way that it’s being provided. I’m not sure we’re ever going to attract the internet tourists, but that’s probably a good thing. This is where you go to get away from that.
I wonder if people who are new to Lemmy feel that loss of algorithm for most instances. It’s probably the thing I like most about Lemmy, I don’t have the sense of corporate showing me what they want me to see, but I could see how that would be a shock when you’re so used to it from other platforms.
IMO it’s never about the tool, but who controls it. For example, nuclear energy is a neutral thing on its own, when used to generate power it’s (arguably) a net positive, when used for bombing it’s a net negative.
The same goes for algorithms, when they are used to save lives at hospitals it’s a net positive, when used to harvest people’s attention it becomes a net negative.
(For anyone interested, I have MAB algorithms in mind, they can be used to prioritize patients at hospitals, or make recommendations in social media. You can guess which application of the algorithm is more commonly used, well researched, and well funded.)
IMO it’s never about the tool, but who controls it
I 100% agree, it’s extremely powerful and covert though, the hospitals could be using it for both good and bad as well.
> For example, nuclear energy is a neutral thing on its own, when used to generate power it’s (arguably) a net positive…
It’s more complicated than that.
Mining uranium has side effects, usually for poorer communities.
The fuel has to handled safety, as well a the waste which to be safely stored for 1000s of years.
Nuclear plants have to be designed and built well.
The most benign democracies have made made a mess of those issues.
1/n
> The same goes for algorithms, when they are used to save lives at hospitals it’s a net positive
Again, more complicated.
Are the algorithms mathematically sound, or just AI/machine learning magic fairy dust?
Do the algorithms have implicit biases against poor people, or those with darker skin or who live in certain postcodes?
2/n
Again, more complicated.
It doesn’t have to be.
Are the algorithms mathematically sound, or just AI/machine learning magic fairy dust?
MAB algorithms lie in middle. They are a mathematically sound way to explore the unknown and make reasonable decisions given whatever context is available.
There have been a few hospital trials with success, but progress is slow and funding is low. There are a few really interesting papers if you are interested to read more.
Do the algorithms have implicit biases against poor people, or those with darker skin or who live in certain postcodes?
In a sense, it’s not different than laws that discriminate against people of color or other marginalized communities. The fact that a bunch of super privileged lawmakers create laws that disproportionately harm us, does not mean that the concept of law is flawed.
You got to ask yourself why the algorithm was given that information in the first place, and more importantly who gave it?
What we call algorithm, is actually two things. A set of instructions (the actual algorithm) and a set of parameters. The instructions explain how to use those parameters in order to make a decision. The parameters may or may not be biased, it all depends on the process that is used to generate those parameters.
AI in particular uses a process called training, in which people make decisions, and another algorithm is used to adjust the parameters so those decisions can be genralized and repeated by the AI. When, biased people make biased decisions, they are going to train an AI to make biased decisions.
Unfortunately, that’s our reality, biased people make biased decisions, as a result we have biased laws and biased algorithms.
By the way, this is what the author calls algorithm cleanse, and it’s bureaucracy supercharged. Why hire someone to reject applicants of color when you can build an algorithm to do that? Making a legal case against that is much harder, and the legal system isn’t ready to understand the nuisances of the case.
However, in contrast to the laws, we marginalized people can create our own “algorithms”, thay are not biased to our best effort. The fediverse is living proof of this. Why fight the system when we can make our own?
This is the best summary I could come up with:
At the time, he noted that the aesthetics of physical spaces, like coffee shops and co-working offices, were being heavily influenced by Airbnb and Instagram, flattening global interior design into one singular and recognizable vibe.
Seven years later, Kyle’s argument is that AirSpace has turned into what he now calls Filterworld, a phrase he uses to describe how algorithmic recommendations have become one of the most dominating forces in culture, and as a result, have pushed society to converge on a kind of soulless sameness in its tastes.
You’ll hear us trace the origins of Filterworld back to the rise of modern social media in the 2010s and how this development has been accelerated by the deterioration of the open web, an erosion of trust in our institutions, and the frankly frightening speed and scale of platforms like TikTok.
What I find is that, in Filterworld, in this world of digital platforms and algorithmic feeds, one quirk goes viral instantly — a new adaptation, a new aesthetic flourish, can go from one person doing it to 100,000 people doing it in a day, whether it’s a TikTok sound or a dance or whatever, and so I think there are these artistic innovations that happen.
When we use the same platform for five or six years, we tend to start getting itchy and wanting something else, and I think it’s also been this gradual evolution of the internet from text to more professionalized images, to audio and video, to TikTok, which is this kind of full-featured television, essentially.
Digital platforms have absorbed different areas of culture that used to be more offline, whether it’s a television equivalent like TikTok or podcasts that used to be radio, over the past decade, more things have gotten more online, and I think that’s been a major shift.
The original article contains 10,641 words, the summary contains 303 words. Saved 97%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
