'It Took 10 Seconds For Instagram To Push Me Into an Anti-Vaxx Rabbit Hole' (vice.com) 143
eatmorekix quotes Vice: It only took around ten seconds. On Wednesday, I created a fresh Instagram account, and followed 'Beware the Needle', a user with 34,000 followers which posts a steady stream of anti-vaccination content. I also followed the user's "backup" account mentioned in its bio, the creator clearly aware that Instagram may soon ban them. Instagram's "Suggested for You" feature then recommended I follow other accounts, including "Vaccines are Genocide" and "Vaccine Truth." I followed the latter, and checked which accounts Instagram now thought would be a good fit for me: another 24 accounts that were either explicitly against vaccinations in their profile description, or that posted anti-vaccine content.
They included pseudo-scientists claiming that vaccines cause autism; accounts with tens of thousands of followers promising the "truth" around vaccinations through memes and images of misleading statistics, as well as individual mothers spouting the perceived, but false, dangers of vaccinating children against measles, polio, and other diseases.
"Instagram told Motherboard it will be looking at different ways to minimize these sorts of recommendations," the article reports, but "did not give a more specific timeframe for this change...."
"For the moment, however, Instagram remains a hot bed of easy to discover misinformation on vaccinations."
They included pseudo-scientists claiming that vaccines cause autism; accounts with tens of thousands of followers promising the "truth" around vaccinations through memes and images of misleading statistics, as well as individual mothers spouting the perceived, but false, dangers of vaccinating children against measles, polio, and other diseases.
"Instagram told Motherboard it will be looking at different ways to minimize these sorts of recommendations," the article reports, but "did not give a more specific timeframe for this change...."
"For the moment, however, Instagram remains a hot bed of easy to discover misinformation on vaccinations."
Social media is the cancer (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Social media is the cancer (Score:4, Insightful)
Social media is always cancer. It is structurally cancer.
You are a product of social media. You immediately tried to jam literally everything into a Ameri-centric left/right narrative. Your comment is typical of today's homogenized internet, but not the internet even 10 years ago.
Re: (Score:3)
Your comment is typical of today's homogenized internet, but not the internet even 10 years ago.
The framing you complain about was endemic to the Internet for longer than the World Wide Web has existed. We had more-or-less the same comments on newsgroups.
So no, 10 years ago wasn't better (or even 20 years ago). You were just less aware.
Re: (Score:2)
And there ain't even a vaccine against them.
"Pushed you in..." (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sorry, it sounds like you deliberately went to this site for the sole purpose of finding this information yourself, so you could report on it for your publication.
Am I missing something?
Re:"Pushed you in..." (Score:5, Funny)
it's vice.. What did you expect? Real journalism?
Re: (Score:2)
Luke 7:24.
Works on two levels here.
Re:"Pushed you in..." (Score:5, Funny)
I went to 7:24 and it had Leia telling Darth Vader "The Imperial Senate will not sit still for this!"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Am I missing something?
Yes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, that's the problem. You're assuming "recommended for you" should just mean "things most similar to what you already follow". If you follow a white supremacist, they should recommend more white supremacists to you. If you follow someone who promotes terrorism, they should recommend more people who promote terrorist. Yeah, that's a problem.
If you follow someone who promotes misinformation and conspiracy theories about vaccines, it would be a lot better for them to recommend some authoritative sources
What? (Score:1)
You mean "you may also like" worked? After they spent millions of dollars on it? Shut up.
Well, all the platforms are quick to do that. (Score:5, Interesting)
I was watching a video about the dismantling of Ignalina Nuclear Power Plant and then one about Sellafield and then YouTube started recommending a bunch of related videos. :D
And I know this is what happens, so I am leary about watching a conspiracy theory video or an anti-vax video just to laugh at them because I YouTube then will start recommending more of that bullshit instantly.
Re: Well, all the platforms are quick to do that. (Score:4, Interesting)
Clearing the viewing history really helps. With or without being subscribed. Freshly deleted YouTube non-subscribed only gives me viral and trending videos as well as the most popular videos in my region. So there's geo-location at work but that is all...
BTW, I have yet to see one, even one loony video recommended to me....according to the crazies in the mainstream media I should have, since I follow "gateway to alt-right" personalities...
This is non-story....unless you are peddling towards total authoritarian control.
Re: (Score:2)
"Taking measures to avoid being show this material avoids being show that material, therefore the evil Mainstream Media is lying... again..."
Unfortunately most people lack your great history-clearing opsec so they do get hit with that crap. It's not as bad as it used to be, Google has been making an effort, but it's still bad.
Re:Well, all the platforms are quick to do that. (Score:5, Insightful)
Part of the problem is that these services have too much blind faith in their ability to make predictions based upon incomplete knowledge. They REALLY need to come up with a way for users who end up pigeonholed and seeing endless recommendations for content to indicate, "Alright, enough already! I read a goddamn article about something while I was bored & taking a dump. Go back to recommending the kind of stuff I'm NORMALLY interested in."
It's like the way TiVo used to be. A few years ago, my brother's family came down for a weekend. I recorded two episodes of a show for my niece & nephew. For the next 3 months, my Tivo was absolutely HELLBENT on endlessly recommending shows on Disney & Nickelodeon, despite the fact that I had about 40 open-ended scheduled recordings for shows that were about as close to being polar opposites of Disney & Nickelodeon kids' shows as you can get. It's like their algorithm said, "Oh, JOY!!!! Someone who now has small kids!!!! Now they're ensnared in the parent-industrial complex forever!!!"
Re: (Score:3)
Part of the problem is that these services have too much blind faith in their ability to make predictions based upon incomplete knowledge.
These services are making billions and users happily click on the recommendations. This problem won't be solved unless it is a) legally regulated, b) regulated by industry code of conduct, or c) users decide they want to play outside a rabbit hole. That last one clearly isn't happening.
Go back to recommending the kind of stuff I'm NORMALLY interested in.
The line of videos immediately under recommendations is from your subscriptions. It's easy to get back to normal viewing.
Re: (Score:2)
c) users decide they want to play outside a rabbit hole. That last one clearly isn't happening.
You're forgetting there isn't exactly a lot of practical alternatives.
Yes, there's other places where people can post videos. They have much less content, and are either about porn or Nazism.
Re:Well, all the platforms are quick to do that. (Score:4, Interesting)
"Part of the problem is that these services have too much blind faith in their ability to make predictions based upon incomplete knowledge. "
You're seriously overthinking this which makes you conclude they are in some way contemplating their actions.
They're not.
All they do is shove more of the same shit you watched towards you. That's all they do.
They don't care for the consequences. There is no 'faith' or 'prediction' involved.
The algorithm can be sumerized in five words: More of the same shit.
Re: (Score:3)
YouTube actually has that. You can click on the three little dots on the video and select "not interested", and then if you want there is a further option to "tell us why" which includes things like "not interested in X", "already seen this video", "not interested in this channel" and simply "didn't like this video".
It does kinda work, the main issue is that it's not available on all platforms. Web and mobile support it, smart TVs and Android TV don't.
Re: (Score:2)
"I didn't like this video" doesn't necessarily mean you don't want to see similar ones.
"I watched this video because I want to keep track of enemies" does not mean "heave me into the same tracking bag as them with 'probably similar thoughts and proclivities' ".
I was branded a Nazi... (Score:2)
For me, eBay made the most interesting "deduction" about my interests.
I happened to be looking at silverware because for some reason I fancied buying some silver knives, until I realised how much they cost. From there I was led into silver coins, and saw a few I thought would look good in my display cabinet, so I decided to 'watch' the auctions. One of the coins happened to be German in origin, from the year 1939. The others were British; silver sixpences and suchlike.
But a few days later, I received an e-m
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I watched some flatearther videos. Part of it was for the entertainment aspect. Except that they turned out to be incredibly non-entertaining. It's like they hunt for whoever is the most boring and have that person do the video. Sure there's the occasional burst of astounding idiocy that evokes laughter but they take 15 minutes to get there. They're also continually fighting with the flath earth debunkers, and those debunkers are getting boring because they're stuck in a tit-for-tat youtube battle.
Then y
Re: (Score:2)
I think that it is interesting that even if I tell YouTube that I am not interested in that video or channel, they are quick to keep pushing more content of the same type. :D (nah)
It seems like when you venture into a new field or topic, they promote that heavily to you. It might also be that I have watched every video relating to the other topics that interest me.
Also, the recommended feed have been weird for the last month or so, I keep getting recommendations to videos I just watched a few days before.
Hm
Re: (Score:2)
It’s worse. Me and a friend of mine decided on a bet about who could reproduce a certain building better on paper: she painting it and I drawing it with a pencil. The next time I was on YouTube it recommended a whole slew of ‘learn to draw’ videos to me.
Re: (Score:2)
I do but it seems to be broken. I have used that on both topics and videos.
At some instances it even recommends MSNBC and Rachel Maddow, no matter how much I tell it that I am not interested in all that news drama.
So... (Score:1)
So... You followed an Anti-vax user, and surprise surprise other anti-vax content was promoted to you...
That seems working as intended to me...
Instagram worked as designed (Score:5, Insightful)
Instagram's recommendations were consistent with the interests expressed. I fail to see what the problem is here.
This may not be "fake news", but it is garbage.
Re: (Score:2)
A thing working properly is not the end of moral criteria. To make an extreme allegory, you would hopefully not fail to see the problem with a government using chemical weapons against peaceful protesters simply because the poison gas was working as designed. What's being criticized is not the effectiveness of the recommendation engine at making accurate recommendations, but the unintended consequences of such a thing in the context of a world that largely exists outside the heads of software developers.
Instagram needs re-design (Score:2)
The issue here is not telling people they aren't "allowed to be interested in something," the issue is about which messages particular social media companies should endorse via their recommendations. There's a gulf of difference between actively censoring arguably unsavoury messages, and guiding viewers eyes towards them.
If you are providing search results, what turns up should* be on the person searching. When you recommend something, you wear that recommendation. [*the commercial interests of the search p
Re: (Score:2)
Umm, soz ... suboptimal caffeine levels. Erratum:
There's a gulf of difference between actively censoring arguably unsavoury messages, and refraining from guiding viewers' eyes towards them.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, so you recommend system where "it is not censored", we just removed card from the catalog and stored book behind shelf of other books. But .. you can still find it ...
Obviously not. Try reading the comment that the above was the erratum to.
Re: (Score:2)
The issue here is not telling people they aren't "allowed to be interested in something," the issue is about which messages particular social media companies should endorse via their recommendations.
Endorse ? Did you just use the word "Endorse" ? Do you know what you're implying here. They are not endorsing anything. You view content, the algorithm suggests similar content. Social Media is not endorsing anything. They ARE NOT PUBLISHERS.
There's a gulf of difference between actively censoring arguably unsavoury messages, and guiding viewers eyes towards them.
No, what you're suggesting is censorship. If I'm interested in hearing commentators talk about how Jussie Smollett might have staged a hoax, I don't want Youtube to start being creative and suggest to me CNN panels about how we need to believe Jussie and that thi
Re: (Score:2)
Endorse ? Did you just use the word "Endorse"
Yes, look it's right there.
They are not endorsing anything.
They are recommending I watch something I never asked to see, they are endorsing those clips.
No, what you're suggesting is censorship.
I'm not, what I wrote should be clear: If you are providing search results, what turns up should be on the person searching. When you recommend something, you wear that recommendation. That's not about censorship, it's about responsibility. I know a terribly old-fas
Re: (Score:1)
I fail to see what the problem is here.
The point is that sometimes recommending more (and more, and more) of a thing, even if it's a good thing, is a bad thing.
Re: (Score:2)
I fail
Indeed.
Re: (Score:3)
The issue is that Instagram clearly knows that the person is interested in anti-vaxx bullshit, and instead of doing what most people would consider the moral thing and pointing them towards material debunking it, gives them more re-enforcement and helps fortify their bubble.
If someone you claimed to care about said they were skeptical of vaccines, would you buy them a book about the dangers of vaccines for Christmas or try to point them towards the truth, for the sake of their kids and herd immunity if noth
They should use PubMed (Score:5, Interesting)
Too bad these sites don't provide preferential recommendations/promotions to accounts and posts that contain links to PubMed articles. If they're going to use these algorithms, they could certainly promote accounts that link to the original publication [nih.gov] even if those accounts promote a conspiracy theory, that the research was real and is being suppressed, etc.
That would at least get actual scientific research reports out front. If you can find anti-vax peer-reviewed research on PubMed, you go right ahead and link/share it. If you can't find it there because it's "being suppressed", find (and let the sites promote) any other sites that publish experimental research in any kind of refereed journal. It would hopefully get this information more in the open and at least cursorily examined for reputability and accuracy by people on the fence.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
LOL! -- The first result lists Deepak Chopra as a researcher! I bet his fans would quote this research anyway. All your points are valid, but being on the fringe, being weird, not disclosing exactly how the journals are included are the kinds of things that ask more questions that hopefully lead down the path of the scientific method, rather than into the network of social media forwards and retweets [mercurynews.com].
Even if it's dicey research, it's hopefully research someone can reproduce, point to similar studies, or p
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately that wouldn't help because peddlers of fake news long ago realized that linking to authoritative sources is a good way to add credibility to your claims, and that no-one ever bothers to check them.
Re: (Score:2)
Then again, it wouldn't hurt either because people who don't check sources also believe any kind of bullshit you put in front of them.
Re: (Score:2)
It might backfire because the fake news pushers are trying to game the system and will make use of this to get promoted over truthful posts which don't link to PubMed.
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty much, yes. At its core this is following ONE account, then being recommended accounts that have interacted a lot with that account, and then being recommended accounts that have interacted a lot with those.
Instagram is not this massive omniscient AI that actually understands what is written on the accounts. Nor is Facebook. Nor is Youtube. It is just a collection of "People who liked this also liked ..."
Re: (Score:2)
The American education system failed because it teaches the wrong things. What is being pushed is rote-learning and regurgitation. You're not only not required to think for yourself, actually questioning and demanding further proof is frowned upon because (elementary) teachers are usually no smarter than the book they have at their disposal and are more interested in instilling their pupils with the idea that following authority is a wanted trait and questioning is anathema.
Since they also don't teach how t
What did you expect (Score:4, Insightful)
It's showing adults what they ask to be shown. You told Instagram to show you Antivaxx content and it did show you antivaxx content. If it had told you "welcome to Instagram, check out these antivaxxers", then there would have been a problem.
Re: (Score:2)
...what they ask to be shown
Did he, though?
When you follow someone, are you really asking for more of the same?
And if so, more of what?
Information on a topic or people agreeing with a particular view within that topic?
Is it sane that your entry point into a field should decide exclusively what sort of information you are fed?
Anti-Vaxxers also on state funded mainstream media (Score:2)
Anti vaccination propaganda is obviously not limited to the underbelly of the Internet.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't understand your critics about the movie.
There is no anti vaccination propaganda in the movie. Only a few true experts pointing out problems. And such problems indeed should be tackled as we know about them since 20 years, e.g. giving multiple vaccines at the same time to toddlers!
Re: (Score:2)
What if they asked you if you wanted a cherry red car because that morning you watched a porn video with a cherry red car in it?
What did you expect? (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Rabbit Hole
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
They were probably led astray by the ponies, promising pancakes.
Evocative, stupid headline (Score:2)
The headline should simply be "Instagram recommended I follow other anti-vaxx accounts after I followed one".
Everyone would simply say "so? why is that surprising" and then the story would not get much attention.
The meant of the story is still that Instagram are trying to do stop recommending these accounts, but that they haven't gotten a handle on it yet.
Contamination (Score:2)
The headline should simply be "Instagram recommended I follow other anti-vaxx accounts after I followed one".
You don't even have to subscribe or add to favorites with Youtube. If you watch any sort of sketchy video while logged in, similar content will forever be part of your suggestions. Not surprising Instagram is the same.
I've just become careful what I watch, ever, so as to not contaminate my profile with perpetual bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
Youtube has a little button when you're logged in, you can click "Not Interested" and it will stop recommending it to you.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks. I did not know that.
Cheers
Re: Contaminated polio vaccine. (Score:4, Informative)
Early epidemiologic studies were inadequate in demonstrating an increase in cancer incidence associated with contaminated vaccine. Recently, investigators have provided persuasive evidence that SV40 is present in human ependymomas, choroid plexus tumors, bone tumors, and mesotheliomas, however, the etiologic role of the virus in tumorigenesis has not been established.
Don't you think that's a bit dishonest if you leave out the first part.
Re: (Score:2)
SV40 continues to cause infections in the human population today.
Sure, but it doesn't continue to contaminate vaccines today. And the incident led to a lot more safety procedures and testing so it's unlikely to happen again.
Re: (Score:2)
Worse, there's a history of food being contaminated. Why don't you just play it safe and stop eating food.
Re: (Score:2)
Good luck figuring out which veggies have salmonella. Are you being intentionally dense?
The freedom to (Score:2)
Read.
Comment.
Link.
Share.
Publish.
With no gov, brand, NGO, think tank, Communist party, mil, cult, faith saying what is sinful.
Big Fucking Deal (Score:2)
The guy started a new account and immediately followed two anti-vaxx posters. What the fuck did he expect would happen?
stupid article (Score:2)
Classic Vice (Score:2)
Exactly the article I'd expect from Vice. "HOW DARE THIS WEBSITE SUGGEST MORE CONTENT OF THE EXACT SAME TYPE THE USER IS ALREADY SEEKING OUT ON THEIR OWN!?" This is simply Vice and their ilk trying to normalize the practice of active thought-policing by social media companies and big tech. Plucking the low-hanging fruit simply establishes a precedent that can then be turned against any thought they don't agree with.
Nobody "falls down" an anti-vax rabbit hole. Anyone stupid enough to seek it out actively is
before and after vaccination (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I find your post has too few CAPS ONLY BITS and not enough reference to autism. Please try harder.
Re: (Score:2)
The RESEARCH on your own means listening to other talking heads with their own financial interests, like books and web sites, in hopes you will put your child at risk so they can earn about the same money from you as evil BIG PHARMA.
Re: (Score:2)
There are great scientific reasons to be sceptical of vaccines. I won't bother listing them here because you brain-dead folks are too lazy to RESEARCH on your own
It's so interesting that the anti-vaxxers claim there is a mountain of scientific evidence.....that they can not describe. Almost like there really isn't such evidence, until you're so deep into anti-vaxx mythology that your critical thinking abilities have been disabled.
In other words: "It's out there, but I'm not gonna tell you about it until you are a believer in the cult"
Re: (Score:2)
Hollywood brainlet parents form a curious cluster of families with autistic children. It is believed to be a result of a hyper focus on autistic testing and parental expectation being satisfied from looking for it.
So I wonder if the chance of autism in a child is doubled if both are Hollywood stars.
Re: (Score:2)
Statistically, children with a higher IQ have parents with a higher IQ. Parents with a higher IQ are less likely to be too stupid to vaccinate. Children of parents with higher IQ have a higher chance of autism. You don't know the difference between correlation and causation.