We’re talking about the child of anti-vaccine parents, OP’s friend didn’t say they were anti-vaccine, they said that their parents were so they were not vaccinated as a child.
So, as a friend, OP should try to convince his friend to talk to a doctor about it. People like that are often sheltered from conflicting opinions and may still be reachable.
If this is the case, try to convince your friend to talk to their doctor about vaccinations. They may decide, for themselves, that they’re comfortable with it.
I’m carrying on multiple conversations in this thread, so I’ll just copy what I said in a different thread:
Of course people like these features, these algorithms are literally trained to maximize how likable their recommendations are.
It’s like how people like heroin because it perfectly fits our opioid receptors. The problem is that you can’t simply trust that the person giving you heroin will always have your best interests in mind.
I understand that the vast majority of people are simply going to follow the herd and use the thing that is most like Twitter, recommendation feed and all. However, I also believe that it is a bad decision on their part and that the companies that are intaking all of these people into their alternative social networks are just going to be part of the problem in the future.
We, as the people who are actively thinking about this topic (as opposed to the people just moving to the blue Twitter because it’s the current popular meme in the algorithm), should be considering the difference between good recommendation algorithm use and abusive use.
Having social media be controlled by private entities which use black box recommendation algorithms should be seen as unacceptable, even if people like it. Bluesky’s user growth is fundamentally due to people recognizing that Twitter’s systems are being used to push content that they disagree with. Except they’re simply moving to another private social media network that’s one sale away from being the next X.
It’d be like living under a dictatorship and deciding that you’ve had enough so you’re going to move to the dictatorship next door. It may be a short-term improvement, but it doesn’t quite address the fundamental problem that you’re choosing to live in a dictatorship.
It also means decoupling the recommendation system from people’s feeds.
Having a “you may like this” section is a lot less abusable than “the next item in your doomscroll is <recommendation>”.
Bluesky is just another Twitter. Everything that happened to Twitter can happen to Bluesky. It’s not fundamentally changing anything except trading Elon for a different owner.
It’s not a bad change, people want Twitter after all… but it isn’t fixing any problems in the underlying incentive structures or algorithm control.
The core problem is that curated feeds allow the owner to substitute their recommendations in place of recommendations that would interest you.
Until the owner can’t do that, the social network is always one sale away from being the next Twitter/Truth Social.
Bluesky is fixing social media by changing the owner, Mastodon/ActivityPub is fixing social media by getting rid of the owner.
I think the latter is the better choice for how to structure these things.
They’re good at predicting what people want to see, yes. But that isn’t the real problem.
The problem isn’t that they predict what you want to see, it is that they use that information to give you results that are 90% what you want to see and 10% of results that the owner of the algorithm wants you to see.
X uses that to mix in alt-right feeds. Google uses it to mix in messages from the highest bidder on their ad network and Amazon uses it to mix in product recommendations for their own products.
You can’t know what they’re adding to the feed or how much is real recommendations that are based on your needs and wants and how much is artificially boosted content based on the needs and wants of the owner of the algorithm.
Is your next TikTok really the next highest piece of recommended content or is it something that’s being boosted on the behalf of someone else? You can’t know.
This has become an incredibly important topic since people are now using these systems to drive political outcomes which have real effects on society.
Some things are incredibly appealing to everyone and also bad for society. We have to treat those things responsibly.
Recommendation algorithms can be useful, to assist you in discovering content. But only as a tool that you can choose to use. If I can select a person that I like listening to and get a list of other people who I may be interested in (assuming that the algorithm is simply matching me to similar peers and not also adding in some “also Elon/Bezos/whoever really wants you to see these guys” skew)… that would be a useful tool.
However, the recommendation algorithms should not be used to make the second-by-second decision about what you see next. The next item in your feed should always be there because of a decision that you make, not as a means of “maximizing engagement” + whatever skew the owner wants to add.
Of course people like these features, these algorithms are literally trained to maximize how likable their recommendations are.
It’s like how people like heroin because it perfectly fits our opioid receptors. The problem is that you can’t simply trust that the person giving you heroin will always have your best interests in mind.
Recommendation algorithms are a useful tool but, only when used in moderation. Attaching a recommendation algorithm directly to your brain via a curated content feed is incredibly unhealthy for both the individual and society.
For stuff like Twitter-likes and TikTok-likes I want an algorithm.
Until recommendation algorithms are transparent and auditable, choosing to use a private service with a recommendation algorithm is giving some random social media owner the control of the attention of millions of people.
Curate your own feed, subscribe to people that you find interesting, go and find content through your social contacts.
Don’t fall into the trap of letting someone (ex: Elon Musk) choose 95% of what you see and hear.
Algorithmic recommendations CAN be good. But when they’re privately owned and closed to public inspection, then there is no guarantee that they’re working in your best interest.
“Is this water warming up, or is it just me? Nah, there’s a cool spot over here, this is fine.”
-Chrome users
A great example of what I’m talking about.
“Disagree? You’re a Nazi”
You’re cheapening the word and helping them become normalized.
The real problem is that there are crazy people who define anybody right of them as a Nazi.
But, we’re not ready to have that conversation yet
It’s a standard terms of service and a verbal “commitment” which isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on.
I’m sure you’ll find the exact same wording on substack’s tos.
The problem is that what social media denizens call Nazi and what Ghost and substack call Nazi are all wildly different things.
Now is not the time to sit and think of how education and whatnot should have been. Now is the time to act.
Acting in ignorance is exactly how we got here in the first place.
If you think that acting means attacking the people wearing red hats on social media then you don’t understand what is happening, what the sides are and what is at stake.
You’re advocating for fighting the other fools while the con man runs away with both of your money.
Because there’s an entire alternate reality built by right wing news sources that exist specifically to create confusion and spread misinformation.
It used to be a joke that Fox News was so unaligned with reality. It’s less funny now that there is an entire media ecosystem that supports this alternate reality.
This is why you see people thinking that Trump is a great businessman. Because according to everything that they see and hear, he is. They were never equipped with the media literacy to counteract the weaponized psychology that’s used to target them with political lies and spin.
By the time any individual encounters reality in a way that is undeniable (like the ex-IRS employee) it’s too late.
They’re just a tiny voice in an ocean of lies. If they try to talk about their experiences on right-wing social media they’ll be labeled as a left-wing plant or banned outright. The right-wing media won’t cover their story or repeat their concerns. It’ll continue repeating the lies and spin like it always has and that person will finally understand Martin Niemöller’s poem.
Your blame is misplaced. You appear think this is the fault of random people who wear different color hats instead of the result of decades of effort by some of the richest people in our society to fundamentally weaken democracy and to create uneducated people that can be manipulated.
You’re blaming the other members of your class that are the victims of decades of educational failure and indoctrination instead of the people who knowingly implemented those policies looking for this specific result.
It’s a narrow minded and short-sighted way of looking at things; and, in addition, your tribalistic rhetoric only serves to increase the division among the working class further aiding the people who seek to profit from this division.
It’s one thing to be frustrated, but ignorance is how we got here and we downvote you because we don’t need more ignorance even if it’s coming from someone wearing a blue hat instead of a red one.
The term is ‘enshittification’ and it’s practically the default business strategy for extracting cash from brand value.
Buy/make a good company by offering a quality service and then spend the next decade cutting costs until the product is terrible.
Most people won’t notice the incremental changes. It’s often likened to boiling a frog.
Maybe, but by the 2nd call the AI would be more time efficient and if there were 20 venues to check, the person is now saving hours of their time.