Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

_Jam_Solo_ t1_ja4t1a7 wrote

Reply to comment by Hilppari in Instagram users are being served gory videos of killing and torture by hugeplateofketchup8

But then you won't be able to see new things that interest you that you don't know exists yet. And like artists won't be able to have any exposure to anyone.

−10

UsernameJonesHere t1_ja55prb wrote

This point is brought up a lot and my simple counter to it is: I don't fucking care. If I want to use Instagram to just look at my friend's photos of a bag of rusty nails Instagram shouldn't care either. No one cared about how they'd find new content before all these social media companies began introducing these intrusive algorithms to keep us on their platforms for hours and hours. It's a completely made up problem that doesn't need to exist at all.

21

_Jam_Solo_ t1_ja56brr wrote

I get it you might not care, and that's fair. I think instagram was like that, but some social media should be geared towards a more global audience, and some should be more local.

Or instagram should allow the choice. I know a lot of people want to use instagram as a way of just connecting with Freund's and family, and they don't care about all the other shit. And that's fair.

But the artists need a way to connect with their fans.

−8

[deleted] t1_ja5se9e wrote

[deleted]

−11

Zokrar t1_ja64y3r wrote

I think it's a bad take to compare a user's desires from a product to the goals of a CEO. The fact that Instagram is a $400 billion dollar company doesn't automatically mean that their algorithm is flawless or that it always serves the user's interests.

Consider the impact of algorithmic bias and how it can influence what content users see or don't see. Companies prioritize profits over user satisfaction or privacy, which is why it's important for users to be aware of how their data is being used and to demand transparency from these companies.

Users should have the right to use Instagram in the way that they choose, without being forced to see certain content or having their data manipulated for the benefit of a company's bottom line

9

Hegar t1_ja4xh0k wrote

Word of mouth still spreads. People, things and memes still went viral before tech companies decided what you want to see.

5

_Jam_Solo_ t1_ja556z3 wrote

Not really. It really doesn't spread much at all, and who is even gonna see it in the first place?

Imagine some amazing artist or YouTuber, creates amazing content.

They post it, and they get 0 views. No hashtags or anything shows their content to anyone. How is word of mouth going to help that?

Although, granted, hashtags can be something you follow.

−6

Xandari11 t1_ja5j6te wrote

The ‘amazing artist’ should not limit themself to youtube. The ‘youtuber’, who is dependent on a single medium, will be lost to time anyway.

5

_Jam_Solo_ t1_ja5lkfm wrote

There are of course multiple social medias, but an artist isn't only valuable of they are the preference of the masses.

Many great artists are the preference of niche groups. The internet reaches far and wide and bring these artists, these masters of their craft, to their fans all over the world. Whereas if they only exist locally, they may only come across a handful of people that enjoy their work, and their talents will go unnoticed and people that would love it will never experience it.

0

Shap6 t1_ja53sdx wrote

how do you think people found new things before social media?

5

_Jam_Solo_ t1_ja54b5r wrote

Before the internet it worked a little differently. That's what record labels did, and tv promoted things, people went to live shows, and stuff like that. It's a new world now.

−2