In the past I've been heavily critical of algorithms and targeted advertisements on social media sites. One reason for this is that I don't trust the people running these systems to ensure they remain unbiased. The claim is that they keep track of what people are watching and then offer a selection curated to the interests of the customer. If a person's algorithm is promoting unhealthy content, the idea is that it is merely a reflection of the person's already unhealthy mindset, and the system remains a benign tool.
However, it seems impossible to prove that they haven't been tweaked to promote more commercially viable content. Indeed, my suspicion is that they likely do. It's been proven that hitting the "dislike" button on YouTube will encourage more suggestions of that kind than if you "liked" it. That in itself seems like the system is artificially weighted to promote certain emotions over others.
However, experiences I've had this year have indicated that my criticism toward these systems may have been a little over-stated. As much as I hate to admit it, it does indeed look like the rage-bait and fear-inducing content that my algorithm curates for me is indeed a reflection of what I choose to engage with. I say this because without conscious effort my suggestions have become, I would say, healthier as of late.
Earlier this year, YouTube started recommending a lot of small-scale creators. Normally, the channels it suggests have a million + subscribers, but these guys had anywhere from a few hundred to... zero. Also, the length of the videos would be significantly longer than most of the content I used to get.
I subscribed to a handful of these people, because I liked the small-scale feeling they gave. So many videos seem over-produced, and short-form media can feel like it's eroding your attention span.
But why would the algorithm decide that I had gained a preference for long-term content with lower viewership? I have a theory. Just before these suggestions started popping up, I had written my 1000th blog post. If you don't recall, this was an overview of each year I'd covered since I started it. This means that I read 999 of my own entries in a row.
This blog is hosted by Blogger which is owned by Google, which also owns YouTube. And what kind of content do I make here? Long-form thoughts with low viewership (averaging like, 15 views per post at the moment. A little over 600 in its hayday. My Gryphood blog actually gets more traffic). So my theory is that Google saw a stark change in behaviour from me in favour of myself, and so with its other branches started to promote creators that make similar content.
(small note that Google is just a search engine owned by Alphabet, which owns Blogger and Youtube, but I'm using the name Google beccause it's more recognizable)
This is the end of the post, but I'll just slip in a brief update on our garden. I know I did that with my last update, but there have been a couple developments.
We already have three sunflower blossoms! There are a few others that appear to be on their way as well. It seems really early, but we planted several strains and I suppose one of them must have been an early bloomer.
Unfortunately I have to give a disappointing update about one of the notable flowers that I highlighted in my previous post. The one that we didn't plant, but which sprung up just to the side of the Kongs. It had grown a second stem after getting its top leaves torn off, but it looks like it's been put down in a more permanent way. Yesterday afternoon, we went out to the garden to find just a little green stump at the place it used to be. We'd seen it just that morning, so whatever happened must have occured just before we discovered its fate.
No evidence of animals scratching or digging, and the main body of the plant was fully vanished. I had thought that it had grown to the point where it was no longer perceivable as food. It's a little peculiar.
Because it has shown such resilience, recovering from what I believed to be a fatal wound, a small part of me holds out hold that it will somehow sprout leaves and grow a third stem. But I don't think it will.
At least we still have the flower with the loop in it's neck, and the one that recovered from having its stem snapped.
No comments:
Post a Comment