I mean it‘s the exact same if you visit Youtube without an account or cookies. The Internet has become a swamp of right wing and neoliberal populism that kicks down on minorities and people with lower than average income in general. The insane amount of completely made up rage bait stories that you get recommended is just unfathomable.

I think it‘s gotten to a point where it needs to be regulated how many lies a site can throw at you at the same time and I don‘t say this lightly. I just see no other way to get this mind eating populist machine under control.

I was explaining this to my daughter not long ago when she told me she kept getting recommended videos about something that offended her (I can't remember what, but something Republicans would be in favor of) on YouTube that the algorithm doesn't care whether or not you agree with the videos. It only cares about whether or not you'll watch them. And if you're willing to hate-watch, which many people are, you'll get served the same videos as the people who enjoy it.

And, of course, the more controversial the better because you'll get a whole lot of both groups. So if you post something sexist and hateful, you'll get a huge number of redpill viewers and the like and then all the other people who go to that post to argue with them. Which means the algorithm learns that those are the best things to push on new accounts too.

That's what happens if you only care about engagement. Chauvinism of any kind is liked by a certain amount of people and despised by the rest of us - both positions drive engagement.

I think they vastly underestimate how many things Meta tracks besides ad tracking. They're likely tracking how long you look at a given post in your feed and will use that to rank similar posts higher. They know your location, what wifi network you're on and will use that to make assumptions based on others on the same network and/or in the same location. They know what times you're browsing at and can correlate that with what's trending in the area at those times, etc.

I have no doubt that their algorithm is biased towards all that crap, but these kinds of investigations need to be more informed in order for them to be useful.

Well it also looks at stuff like the other devices connected from the same IP, other devices near where you connect from and then based on this also hones the served content.

So if the author/some colleague or even the neighbors are red pilled/MGTOW/Chriso-Fachists etc this also makes sense. Possibly even their research into these subjects slanted the results. Let alone what happens if they spun up a VM at a cloud farm and used it from there.

I'm in no way surprised that "social" media corps serve up vile shit for profit ik just not convinced by some random let's see what happens.

Edit: I'd be for a law that required targeted ads to have a small "why you see this" and if you click it the company is required to show you the selection criteria that caused this ad to be served to you in an easy to understand format. (Leaving out all the irrelevant criteria).. ie.

You where selected by the following criteria:

• region: europe
• gender: male
• interests: Games, Lemmy, politics

When I first joined Internet communities as a preteen, I just followed forums that interested me and got exposed to whatever people happened to be talking about on those forums.

Why, oh why, has the world decided that we need recommendation algorithms at all?

I have a ~3year old fb account because I have to use messenger. I don't use FB almost at all (I even sparingly accept friend requests) and have turned off ~anything that provides targeted content (I live in EU).

Since about last year (or possibly even before), my feed is about 35% Ikaria ads (a Greek island, I'm from Greece), 10% porn, 10% sexist-misogynistic stuff, 15% sexist-misogynistic porn, 15% christian stuff and the rest random stuff.

At least this might confirm that turning off targeted content works..🤷

So these algos they time how long you look at things when scrolling. So to begin, sure there's no user input, but the mere act of looking unless controlled to be exactly the same on everything is in fact input.

Getting a sexist thing and lingering on it for an extra 5 seconds tells the algo you engaged with the sexist thing so send them more sexist things.

Edit: it shouldn't be serving it up at all, but that's how this can happen.

we opted out of ad tracking so it could not tell what we were doing outside of the app

One of the rules of the Internet is "unsubscribe from the defaults."

Of course, young men were starting to be much too peaceful and open-minded.

This is the best summary I could come up with:

On Instagram, while the explore page has filled with scantily-clad women, the feed is largely innocuous, mostly recommending Melbourne-related content and foodie influencers.

Nicholas Carah, an associate professor in digital media at the University of Queensland, said the experiment showed how “baked into the model” serving up such content to young men is on Facebook.

She praises the federal government’s Stop it at the Start campaign, which includes an “Algorithm of Disrespect” interactive depicting what a young man may encounter on social media.

The federal government has also funded a $3.5m three-year trial to counteract the harmful impacts of social media messaging targeting young men and boys.

The social services minister, Amanda Rishworth, says combatting misogynistic attitudes and behaviour in the online and offline world will help achieve the national plan to end violence against women and children in one generation.

“Around 25% of teenage boys in Australia look up to social media personalities who perpetuate harmful gender stereotypes and condone violence against women - this is shocking,” she says.

The original article contains 1,154 words, the summary contains 170 words. Saved 85%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!