Slashdot Mirror
Toutiao, One of China's Most Popular News Apps, is Discovering the Risks Involved in Giving People Exactly What They Want Online (nytimes.com)
The New York Times reports: One of the world's most valuable start-ups got that way by using artificial intelligence to satisfy Chinese internet users' voracious appetite for news and entertainment. Every day, its smartphone app feeds 120 million people personalized streams of buzzy news stories, videos of dogs frolicking in snow, GIFs of traffic mishaps and listicles such as "The World's Ugliest Celebrities." Now the company is discovering the risks involved, under China's censorship regime, in giving the people exactly what they want. The makers of the popular news app Jinri Toutiao unveiled moves this week to allay rising concerns from the authorities (Editor's note: the link may be paywalled; alternative source).
Last week, the Beijing bureau of China's top internet regulator accused Toutiao of "spreading pornographic and vulgar information" and "causing a negative impact on public opinion online," and ordered that updates to several popular sections of the app be halted for 24 hours. In response, the app's parent company, Beijing Bytedance Technology, took down or temporarily suspended the accounts of more than 1,100 bloggers that it said had been publishing "low-quality content" on the app. It also replaced Toutiao's "Society" section with a new section called "New Era," which is heavy on state media coverage of government decisions.
Last week, the Beijing bureau of China's top internet regulator accused Toutiao of "spreading pornographic and vulgar information" and "causing a negative impact on public opinion online," and ordered that updates to several popular sections of the app be halted for 24 hours. In response, the app's parent company, Beijing Bytedance Technology, took down or temporarily suspended the accounts of more than 1,100 bloggers that it said had been publishing "low-quality content" on the app. It also replaced Toutiao's "Society" section with a new section called "New Era," which is heavy on state media coverage of government decisions.
From a "Winston" point of view: the authorities are putting a lid on negative public opinion. If they can't talk about it, it doesn't exist.
1,100 bloggers that it said had been publishing "low-quality content" on the app.
You must realize that they are equating porn/critical discourse as equivalent to spam. This is fairly similar to the idea that sinful thoughts (such as homosexuality) are just the devil trying to trick you, and a test of your commitment to what is "right". This is dangerous and stupid thinking, but to hear them use such a phrase is almost comical if it weren't actually happening.
In general the problem with the Internet as a news source medium. Is that we are fed information that for the most part we really want to hear.
Depending on the sources our side is always winning or the other side is just comically failing. Or we will just avoid any painful information at all and just fluff.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
The best answer is always more government. Perhaps something like the Fairness Doctrine, so that panels of government appointees can wield power over the exact weight that each opinion and story is given. The US would be a much better place if there were only a ministry of truth, and black masked volunteer Antifa enforcers with baseball bats to clarify the right way for young people to think, or else. We'd be so much happier if only those people we don't like were silenced. If only someone with government power could tell us which people should be allowed to speak or gather on state-run college campuses, we'd be so much more free.
The Chinese are so wise. We should follow their example, as so many forward-thinking college administrators are now doing.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Seriously. How do we do it?
I think that's the number one question for Humanity over the next 500 years. It's now or never.
I remember how the first people using the internet talked about how great it was in spreading good information, and how this was going to elevate society. The first generation of people using the internet had to work at it, to get it to work. As a result there was a quality there. It's understandable that they saw this being the future state for the internet as well; and didn't see that the average person is going to be wanting to consume echo chamber, low quality noise.
And Russia.
Seriously. How do we do it?
I think that's the number one question for Humanity over the next 500 years. It's now or never.
So is it actually now, never, or in the next 500 years?
So the risk is that the government doesn't like what people want? I think I can see the problem here and it isn't Toutiao.
On another order of things... Yes, the algorithms are getting very good at giving us what we want but the risk is to live in a bubble that leaves out opinions we don't like and important things that are unlike we read before.
Also, I've realised that constant usage of social media has left me unable to cope with even short moments of doing nothing. My brain craves novelty non stop.
It's the NY Times giving credibility to the non-word "listicle" that I find most disturbing...
Vote libertarian.
Not that it will ever happen, but the common thread among them is to quit trying to be everybody's parents (Democrats are overly motherly, while Republicans are overly fatherly.)
Unfortunately, politics and power in general tends to attract people seeking control, i.e. authoritarians.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
It's a mental illness.
Unfortunately, like the fungus that infects ant brains and causes them to climb to the tops of plants where they'll be easy prey for birds and thus spread the fungus, the mental illness that is authoritarianism (basically, a desire to run other people's lives) causes the victims to seek out positions of power over others and change societal rules to make it easier to spread.
We don't have 500 years. We'll be lucky if we get 50.
"Editor's note: the link may be paywalled"
The article is not paywalled. YOUR browser cookie just counted the allowed articles.
Since it is _your_ computer and _your_ cookie, just delete the cookie and there's no paywall.
Start voting against it, politically and economically. And socially (i.e. try to persuade others that Stalin and Hitler didn't really perfect the ideals of governance).
Some people might think the 2016 presidential election was a good sign (radical authoritarianism only got 95% of the vote instead of the usual 99%) but don't be fooled. That only happened because Democrats and Republicans had a bet, about who could have the worst candidate. We aren't really making any gains, yet.
Shit, why are you guys messing around in China? The USA wants what you have to offer!
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Most of us want a civilized society with services -- so if you're in a federal country, let's simply shift the parenting down a level. Elect libertarians at the national level and socialists at the state level. That way you've got all the services you want, but you've also got oversight with the national government acting as a watchdog passing laws that stop surveillance and propaganda and other abuses of citizens by their states.
This space intentionally left blank
Clearly, the OP is saying that it's during this 500 year period, or never. Asshat.
I don't understand why you think you need a government to implement services that people want or need.
That's the whole point of a Free Market: To find out what people want and need, and to provide those things in a way that is profitable (read: in a way that is sustainable). People often think they want/need something that they do not or should not, and yet ignore or completely miss those things that they should; a Free Market is not bothered by these idiosyncrasies, but vote-grabbing governments certainly are confused by them.