it’s never just ads or subscriptions, it’s a shitty integrated fucking garbage algoritm driven with content you don’t want to see shown to you, the interface is ALWAYS shittier and worse, no explanation, just that it looks ‘modern’

i’m so fucking sick of it lads

  • quixotic120@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Because it works

    It doesn’t work for you but it works for the casual user

    Promoting shitty short rage bait content, charged headlines where no one reads the articles, etc drives traffic up with casual users who are far less likely to use ad blockers, far more likely to use native apps, far more likely to enable tracking features blindly, etc.

    Power users don’t like it but power users don’t view ads, are more likely to be privacy focused, etc. they also are a very small demographic so they are simply ignored once they are annoying. Before they are annoying they are marketed to bc they can be milked with things like premium subscriptions for no ads or whatever.

    Subscriptions don’t sell for social media, advertising doesn’t pay until you’re scaled wayyyyy up, and generally once advertising and outside funding gets seriously involved they start pushing you to get as many impressions as possible. So basically advertising is a cancer that ruins everything along with the capitalistic need for constant growth and endless profits

    • Nougat@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I would add misinformation to the set of tools used to increase engagement. People who are vulnerable to misinformation embrace it because it makes them feel more powerful, being in possession of “the hidden truth.”

      • quixotic120@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Sure. And it works both ways, also gets the other side who feel the need to comment to correct it. Divisive comment is similar, for many it drives feelings of superiority but for others it’s rage bait.

        But there’s a lot of sub categories to toolset here. One of the interesting parts of Reddit was that it showed that users would categorize their ragebait; r/stupidfood, r/diwhy often featured obvious troll farm content that was designed to get people to just comment “this is so fucking stupid”. But when it got reposted to Reddit it got its own category and people subbed to it; they wanted to see more of it. They want to see videos of people wasting food to farm comments. once again the simpsons predict the future

  • safjx@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    I think it’s the same principle that led to the slogan “Nobody ever got fired for choosing IBM”. It’s a list of checkboxes that someone can present to investors and get money.

    • zib@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I was just thinking something along these lines. Telling investors and venture capitalists that your site has “content algorithms” sounds a hell of a lot more professional than “we have ads and subscriptions”, even if the algorithms in practice are just as bad, if not worse. What I’ve learned from my time in the corporate world is that quality of a product does not matter one bit, only how you sell the product marketing strategies and profit projections to investors.

    • Anomandaris@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Interestingly I had never seen this phrase until a few days ago, on another similar thread, and now it seem like everyone is saying it.

      Baader-Lemmyhof?

      • Anomander@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Baader-Lemmyhof?

        Probably.

        At the very least, I can confirm that the saying was definitely was a thing a decade or two ago, when IBM was major player in enterprise / corporate computing. They generally weren’t the best computers, or the best value, or even particularly great - but they were a safe choice.

        You went out and bought new computers for the XYZ department from some competitor - and if anything went wrong, your ass was on the line for buying unreliable garbage from a shitty company. If you bought IBM and the same thing happened, management would kind of shrug and assume that the same problem would have gone wrong on any other computer, because IBM is a trusted safe brand.

        So the idea that no one ever got fired for buying IBM was a running joke in tech circles - that it’s not bad, it’s not good, but it is career-safe for the person signing the cheque - and the bean-counters buying computers really like safe.

  • Thomase7@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    The algorithm bullshit is to show you more content (and therefore more ads). The ideal for social media companies is like tik tok where you just scroll endlessly.

    On twitter or Reddit I look at the posts from the accounts and subs I follow and then am done.

    • MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Yup, tik tok went and showed what’s the most profitable.

      And as capitalism dictates, there is no room for any other business model, except the one that makes the most money.

      So it must now be copied by all, until we’re so sick of it there’s not a single cent left to be made by using it.

      • ArcticLynx@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        ever since the normies and with them the big companies discovered the internet it has become shit. money destroyed everything

  • jray4559@lemmy.fmhy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Because an ad or a subscription is more obvious.

    Algorithms are harder to prove and don’t interrupt the flow of content, thus less people get pissed, which means less people leave, and they can charge higher rates to advertisers.

  • Stevied@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Executives get the majority of their income through shares and an increase in share price.

    Whatever works for the year to increase share price makes you rich.

  • designated_fridge@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Because they care about one metric: time spent watching ads.

    If they only show you chronological - for example - there is a risk you open the app, find that nothing has happened (or what happened is of low quality). Controlling what you see makes it easier to also ensure there’s always a reason to visit the page. Leaving it all to recency or popularity or something means handing over the control of your time.

    And it’s always going to piss off people but the important part is what it does for the big masses (which likely is - more time spent watching ads)

  • nepenthes@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Inflation/cost of living/etc isn’t singlehandedly increasing “enshittification” but rather the boundless greed of capitalism which seeks infinite growth of profit.

    It’s unsustainable so we’d better make more humans to buy more stuff from a handful of people.

    • JasSmith@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Companies seek profit but let’s not forget that as people, we control what we buy and use. We’re here on Lemmy because we reject the bullshit. If more of us rejected the bullshit, they stop doing it.

      • Foggyfroggy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        But it takes a while to detect, form an opinion, then act on it. Suppose that 10,000 people per day reject some brand, say this is enough!, and refuse to buy their products. Well, the marketing and sales department has its work cut out: use mild deception, purchase competitors, change local laws, and make sure that more customers are added than the attrition. And even if they didn’t add any new customers, there are so many current customers for companies like proctor and gamble or nestle, that it will still take 15,000 days or 41 years for even half of the US population to “reject” the brand or company. It’s just not feasible for individuals to fight corporate advertising and marketing mechanics on appropriate time and economic scales.

        But compared to a government regulatory body? That scares a company or industry, or at least it used to :(

        • conciselyverbose@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          It doesn’t make sense to expect it to be linear. It’s (in some manner) proportional to the number of users and to the number of other people who quit.