576
‘Andrew Tate is a symptom, not the problem’: why young men are turning against feminism
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 04 Feb 2024
576 points (93.9% liked)
News
23406 readers
3309 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
YouTube Algorithms, facebook Algorithms, etc. make them all publishers responsible for their content.
the algorithms just rewards "shocking" content; it generates conversation.
I forget who I heard it from, but some bigger YouTuber mentioned that when talking to someone at YouTube about "the algorithm" and the person who worked at YouTube suggested rather than always thinking about it being the algorithm that drives what's popular, that it's the users who engage with that content. In the "line goes up" capitalist mindset, the algorithms at these companies are really just designed around engagement, and keeping people hooked. The "algorithm" is just what it thinks the audience wants.
And while I think a lot of us would like to think better of ourselves, I think we all have a strong tendency to engage with ragebait, and "shocking" content. Which wouldn't necessarily be a bad trait in a pre-internet world. But in the world where the shareholders always need the line to go up infinitely, all of our media gets filled with the garbage that makes the line go up the most.
In the short term, we can all try more to engage less with the kind of content, showing the algorithms that we don't actually want that content.
In the long term, we should probably de-couple our media from the infinite-growth investor-first capitalism that has formerly-respected publications writing articles about what 5 random people said on Twitter that they can ragebait people into engaging with.
Yes people like stuff that's not good for them, violence focused "journalistic" shows were all the rage during the early millenium since they did get a big viewership, but nowadays they are mostly over with only a few left, we should demand change from those that have the power to do it.
People also need to be responsible in what they choose to believe though.
That's true but unregulated internet access at a young age exists
Yes but…I try ink media literacy is something that isn’t necessarily intuitive. It can and should be taught in elementary and secondary schools.
Engineering controls are always the most effective way to limit contact with harmful substances.
True, but imagine if we gave everyone an automatic weapon and told people they need to be responsible for what they choose to shoot. True, but we probably shouldn't have given out so many weapons.
It's a terrible metaphor, but there's an intersection between personal, collective, corporate, and technological responsibility that we need to consider, and it's hard to articulate in a few sentences. IMHO we're all in an ouroboros of thought and action, internally and externally.
The thing is it's really not hard to fact check things you see.
If you do that, kiss the Fediverse goodbye.
Not necessarily. If it only applies to sites with algorithmic feeds (i.e. specifically ones that serve individualized streams to each user based on what they specifically have liked in the past), companies who choose to be in control of what content they show are held to account and smaller platforms are safe.
Or do what the EU did with the DMA.
Write a law specifically for megacorps and only megacorps. It's possible and it works.
arent up- and downvotes pretty much just that?
i think so, even if it isn't stuff like "hot" or "active" definitely are
Not if algorithmic feeds are defined as ones that show individualized feeds to each user, like I said in my comment
I think you'd have to dig into the definition of an algorithm.
Defined in the law, doofus
Yeah, the definition in the law would have to be based on what constitutes an algorithm. That's what I meant, doofus
What specific algorithms the law applies to does not have to be all pieces of code that could be conceivably classed as an "algorithm". The law can use a different word if it makes you feel better
Gotcha. Forgot the legal system doesn't like logical speech lol