I’m sure you’re never wrong about anything. Maybe you should start a podcast.

At times like early covid there wasn’t much facts and evidence available. Back then masks didn’t stop the spread of the virus but vaccines were supposed to. Who decides what the facts are in times like that?

Yeah, but the question was; who decides what is disinformation? If it was some truly competent and unbiased AI system then I perhaps wouldn’t be as concerned about it, though I can see issues with that too, but humans are flawed and I see this as a potenttial slippery slope towards tyranny and censorship.

Who decides what the facts are?

…and? We can’t have people having public conversations online then because some might take it too seriously? I don’t see how this is a criticism towards Joe.

He has never claimed to be a legitimate journalist. He has said repeatedly that you shouldn’t take him too seriously - he’s a cage fight commentator after all.

To be fair; that was 22 years ago. People change. He’s even different now than he was like 5 years ago when I started listening to the show. Way less confrontational for example. I’ve heard many people talk about him on other podcasts and say that he’s exactly the same person in real life than he’s on the show.

I don’t personally have any issue with algorithms - they work quite well for me, though it does require some active management. For example, if I watch one or two 30-second videos on YouTube, it quickly starts recommending more, which quickly floods my feed. However, when I start ignoring those recommendations, despite the temptation to click, the algorithm eventually stops pushing them and shifts back to suggesting accurately tailored, long-form content that genuinely interests me. The same goes for using the “not interested” button. This aligns with my experience on platforms like Twitter and Instagram as well, though the latter I no longer use.

Algorithms obviously don’t care whether the content they show you makes you glad that you saw it. They simply serve what captures your attention. If it’s outrage, then that’s exactly what you’ll get. The algorithm knows plenty of other users engage with that kind of content, so it rationally assumes the same will apply to you.

When you think you’re paying attention to more than one thing at a time you’re actually not paying attention to anything.

I don’t think that tops the content on rotten.com

I have a strong feeling that if we were to re-live the 90’s right now we’d quickly realise it wasn’t so “innocent” after all. People just had thicker skin back then and recreational outrage wasn’t really a thing due to how slow news and trends speaded at the age of early internet.

Simply having the same or similar features alone doesn’t make it a viable replacement. I switched from Instagram to Pixelfed and went from hardly anyone seeing my photography to literally no one seeing it.

I don’t even need to read to comments to be able to predict it’s 100% cynicism and snide jokes. That’s how predictable this platform is.