Hacker News Reader

Comment by supernumerary | Hacker News Reader

I think that Facebook is almost the opposite of what the author describes. Not so much a "“ontological insecurity.”, more like a place for reassurance and security, i've written about it here: https://iainmait.land/posts/20170201-transitional-object.htm...

Regarding algorithmic doppelgangers and how we govern them (Zuckerberg 2020) this is a good place to start:

https://iainmait.land/posts/20170418-algorithmic-governmenta...

View on HN

Would you say that networks like Twitter fall into the same category? People are also able to build comfortable "filter bubble" spaces there without the help of algorithms.

I think that the general characteristic isn't so much the algorithmic control inherent in social networks, rather it's our approach to it - the general characteristic of a transitional object is that we don't ask of it ...

'Is this part of me, or external to me? Did I come up with this, or was it presented to me?'

As long as a user avoids or suppresses those kinds of questions then yes it's a transitional object, and whatever algorithmic control is in effect is not so important to us. To a certain extent, the algorithms, just reflect our desire for a space where there is an illusion that the outer-world accords with our inner-worlds.

Meanwhile - in terms of differentiating Facebook from the other social networks ...

Unlike Twitter (word limits, textual), and Snapchat (ephemeral, visual) Facebook is gunning for limitlessness (VR, Everything) ... in this sense, in giving its users a sense of omnipotence and omnipresence it's in a different league, one where the fundamental question of where we end and our algorithmic doppelgangers begin is elided altogether in favor of an algorithmic state ... with it's own reality, and truth.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com