idk, my TikTok feed is full of cats and dogs doing funny things.

My question is why teenagers gravitate to horrendous content en masse.

Young girls have feeds full of eating-disorder content, and young boys have feeds mixed with misogyny like Tate. Not all teenagers watch either, but these recommendations are a disease plaguing the platform.

They don't gravitate towards it. The algorithm inches them towards that. It starts with exercise videos and healthy eating, which is fine, but eventually goes towards eating-disorder content. Similar for boys.

What's the motivation for rigging the algorithm to push people into negative content?

Here's an analogy to understand ad-driven social media apps:

Imagine a world where there are thousands of companies out there that produce these strange little unpleasant pellets of food that they want people to eat. They don't want people to buy them—the company is happy to send out pellets for free because they make money when the pellets get eaten. (Let's not worry about how that could make economic sense. Maybe the pellets are made of sequestered carbon and the company is selling carbon credits.)

So all these companies want to get millions of people eating their pellets, but people don't want to. They don't taste very good and they've got, like, better shit to do with their lives.

But people do like eating other food. And usually they have to pay for it, which kind of sucks.

An opportunity exists here, and "social eating" companies pop up. These companies will ship you food for free, and you can eat as much as you want. What joy! The only catch is they've mixed some of these not-very-tasty pellets in with the food they send you. The social eating companies get paid by the pellet companies, which is how they're able to make and send you food for free.

Here is the interesting question: What kind of food do the social eating companies make? You might think that since they want to get as many people eating their food mixed-with-pellets as possible, they would make the best food they can. And, indeed, they do want to make food that is scrumptious, compelling, and mouth-watering. But what they don't want it to be is satisfying. Because once you're sated, you stop eating. That's the last thing they want because the more pellets you choke down, the more they get paid.

So what they make is junk food like chips and cookies. Each serving is a single tiny delicious bite, but as soon as it goes down, you're even hungrier than before. Its high in anticipation and desire, but low is satisfaction and satiety. You crave it, but once you have it, you don't actually feel any better. If anything, the craving is even more intense.

Now apply that metaphor to information. The most junk-food-like content is the stuff that triggers anxiety and anticipation if you don't watch it: fear of missing out, question-inducing "You won't believe...", alarming "You're doing ___ wrong...", etc. The content doesn't make you feel good if you do watch it, it makes you feel bad if you don't. Because that way, when you do watch it, the nagging anxiety goes away a bit, but you still don't feel "done" and still want more.

clickbate.

that which inflames or causes controversy gets sent around or reposted.

clicks == money.

as does "sponsored content" aka "post this to everyone who meets demographic groups X and Y". just so happens that some of those people want folks angry about some topic.

Emotions garner attachment. Negative emotions even more so.

I guess that makes sense. Just following the user's preference gets only positive content, which is great, but carefully steering them to something darker is even better.

And birds and sneks. Good, wholesome stuff a vast majority of the time.

multiple times in that article it's admitted that being a furry is sexual--because everything is. comparing it to Tupperware parties, as if the rate of sex at Tupperware parties is in any way comparable.

If everything is sexual, then the distinction becomes meaningless and only something that is significantly more sexual than the baseline is worth remarking upon.

My argument is that furry isn't inherently any more sexual than anything else. To call it a sex/kink thing is not a meaningful argument.

you are so unreasonable it's almost funny. why even continue after your first statement? why even make your first statement? go bait somewhere else.

how convenient. relegating any concern for the modern trans movement to pure malevolence. I guess it makes it easier for you.

By all means, if you think you can come up with any issues or concerns that don't involve the typical political talking points then please, do so.

+1 for tech ingredients. that guy is awesome. you're missing AvE in the shop category though.

idk, all of the best characters in game of thrones were the established actors. ned stark, Robert baratheon, roose Bolton, tywin lanister.

There are "established actors", if Michael McElhatton is the standard we're using, in the new show. Sean Bean was the biggest draw in GoT and was gone after the first season. When we're quibbling over the resumes of character actors, we've conceded the main point, which is that GoT didn't use star power to attract its following.

I'm not quibbling over anything. I disagree with "Unheard of actors is generally a good thing when doing a new series" and the logic provided. It's just ridiculous on its face. Generally, people with more experience produce better results. Generally, people who have a history of producing better results produce better results. Who would have thought?

Looks like you're confusing experienced actors with popular actors. Just because the actors are not popular does not mean that they are not experienced and distinguished actors; furthermore just because an actor is popular does not mean they are experienced or distinguished.

That's wildly not the case in the performing arts; just, like, a crazy thing to say. Stars get cast over and over again because audiences are comforted by familiar faces, not because the stars themselves are somehow the best actors in the world. Ben Affleck is a leading man, for Christ's sake.

You managed to ignore "generally" twice (specifically put in to avoid your exact kind of response), construct a strawman argument for me, and then failed to actually defeat that strawman argument. Who is talking about "stars?" None of the cast I mentioned in the original comment are stars. They're ESTABLISHED, EXPERIENCED, PROVEN actors. That's literally the whole point I was making.

And your response to the strawman you constructed is... there is zero correlation between stardom and acting ability? It kind of seems like you and the op are saying there is an INVERSE correlation. But I'm the crazy talker here? okay.

Yes, if we're going to just accept the "crazy talk" rhetoric (I'm fine with it!), I stand by what I said: you are the crazy talker here. :)

I do love that citing Ben Affleck forced you to retreat into "I said generally!" though. We agree on something!

if you all like TIS-1000, play Exa Punks.

hard to moderate consumption when you're doing dabs...

Alright, we have successfully destroyed all 400,000,000 guns in the US. What do these disturbed young men, who would murder children if given the opportunity, do? Are they magically cured? Or do they rent a U-Haul and drive through a little league game? what do we do that at that point? or do you make concessions and argue semantics and degrees of lethality?

> What do these disturbed young men, who would murder children if given the opportunity, do?

Have you looked at every other country for evidence of what they might do? I feel there is a lot of evidence there to answer your question.

Take from them the toy made to kill, _and_ fix the society.

From abroad, the US sometimes looks like a country of frustrated, violent, ignorant people, where the ability to produce money is the only value given to civilization.

Or is the whole world like that? Sure I am between the aliens on this planet - those thinking human killing-other-human shouldn’t even exist.

Let’s follow that thread about moving to another galaxy, it gives me more hopes :)

I don't know, but most other countries manage just fine. I've never heard of children running people over for fun in these places.

you can also take a Latin course in college. how "well" is Latin doing?

Good, it is still the official language in Vatican documents, has an updated dictionary, and some European countries see it as a CV requirement by most HR departments when hiring for top management positions.

> some European countries see it as a CV requirement by most HR departments when hiring for top management positions.

This sounds utterly bizarre, I have a very hard time believing this. Which countries would that be?

I can't confirm the specific example, but this sounds like a smoke cover for nepotism and/or classism. If you're not allowed to recruit solely from your personal friend group, requiring that applicants be able to speak a dead language let's you select that same group of people while giving a flimsy justification.

So, just like strong idiosyncratic preferences for particular programming languages.

In France for example, it used to be that all good family kids studied Latin, so high league universities and was seen as plus on the CV, at least for 20 years when I used to live there.

France would be a typical example, except that this is an urban legend.

Context: I graduated from the 3rd best high school in France, then from one of the Grandes Ecoles (~ Ivy League). I was born in the early 70's in Versailles.

German and Latin were seen as languages where the best students meet. This was a vision of the parents without getting in the reality. The best high-school students were everywhere.

I had Latin and Greek in mid-school and high school like anybody else. Complete loss of time when you are not interested.

At university it did not matter at all.

Today, when recruiting even for the "really French" companies nobody would think about Latin as a discriminant. It literally wouldn't cross anyone's mind.

There are urban legends everywhere, this is one about French education (which is sometimes great, and sometimes completely backwards to the point where I doubt the decisions makers have ever seen kids in real life)

As for today (and not 40 years ago), in the class of my son in that same elitist high school, one student does Latin and Greek. Because he is interested in the languages.

That’s pretty good for a dead language, but not so much for a living one to the OP’s point.