←back to thread

Nepal moves to block Facebook, X, YouTube and others

(www.aljazeera.com)
286 points saikatsg | 2 comments | 05 Sep 25 11:31 UTC | HN request time: 0.404s | source
Show context
ktosobcy ◴[05 Sep 25 12:29 UTC] No.45137736[source]▶
EU should to the same (FB & X).

In general anything that has "algorytmic content ordering" that pushes content triggering strong emotional reactions should be banned and burned to the ground.

replies(16): >>45137822 #>>45138118 #>>45138157 #>>45138164 #>>45138363 #>>45138553 #>>45138596 #>>45138634 #>>45138850 #>>45139915 #>>45141003 #>>45141109 #>>45141695 #>>45141755 #>>45143915 #>>45147812 #
Karrot_Kream ◴[05 Sep 25 17:17 UTC] No.45141003[source]▶
> pushes content triggering strong emotional reactions should be banned

Aren't you describing your own comment? Aren't upvotes pushing that to the top? So isn't HN the thing that needs to be banned according to your comment?

replies(3): >>45141072 #>>45143034 #>>45143090 #
1. blargey ◴[05 Sep 25 20:12 UTC] No.45143090[source]▶
The opposite, actually - I remember reading that HN downranks posts that have a low favorability:engagement ratio - in its case, high comment count and comparatively low votes. The reasoning being that flamebait topics inspire a disproportionate number of angry/low-substance/pile-on comments and retort-chains compared to normal topics, without garnering a corresponding increase in top-level votes.

It's imperfect, but afaik most social media does the opposite (all "engagement" is good engagement), and I imagine, say, Twitter would be much nicer if it tuned its algo to not propagate posts with an unusually high view/retweet count relative to likes.

replies(2): >>45143333 #>>45143439 #
2. setsewerd ◴[05 Sep 25 20:40 UTC] No.45143333[source]▶
That's interesting, it seems like it would accidentally penalize a lot of "good" posts too, like people asking questions to better understand a topic/perspective