How do the algorithms of Facebook and Instagram affect what you see in your news feed? To find out, Guardian Australia unleashed them on a completely blank smartphone linked to a new, unused email address.

Three months later, without any input, they were riddled with sexist and misogynistic content.

Initially Facebook served up jokes from The Office and other sitcom-related memes alongside posts from 7 News, Daily Mail and Ladbible. A day later it began showing Star Wars memes and gym or “dudebro”-style content.

By day three, “trad Catholic”-type memes began appearing and the feed veered into more sexist content.

Three months later, The Office, Star Wars, and now The Boys memes continue to punctuate the feed, now interspersed with highly sexist and misogynistic images that have have appeared in the feed without any input from the user.

    • ℍ𝕂-𝟞𝟝@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      2 months ago

      Well, that just evidences that the only good way to do capitalism is with a wealth tax and unlimited paid sick leave.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 months ago

          In which country is capitalism working well? Because I can’t think of one that doesn’t have a desperately poor underclass. Just ones that have a good non-capitalist government safety net to help them.

        • ℍ𝕂-𝟞𝟝@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          Nah, the capitalism parts of the NL are the most often criticised ones. It’s a tax haven for corps - did you know IKEA is a Dutch charity? - and the healthcare system is only getting worse because of copying US patterns of private ownership.

    • jpreston2005@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Capitalism, like every other form society takes, is inherently flawed. Power pools, and every system eventually falls into oligarchy. The only way to prevent this, is strong social welfare programs enacted with regularity. This is proven mathematically, here.

      The only reason capitalism works there is because of their strong social welfare programs.

      You’re wrong.

      • BlackLaZoR@kbin.run
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        I can’t take this model seriously - it assumes that economy is a zero sum game. If an economy actually was the zero sum game, then where all the wealth came from???

        To be clear, I absolutely agree with the title - inequality is 100% unavoidable, but for completely different reasons.

        • jpreston2005@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          then where all the wealth came from

          are you being serious right now, is this a real question? In the age of cryptocurrency you’re asking this question.

          • BlackLaZoR@kbin.run
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            is this a real question?

            I’m trying to point out the massive hole in the reasoning behind linked paper

            In the age of cryptocurrency you’re asking this question.

            Cryptocurrencies are barely relevant here

            Edit: Wait. Are you a university student? What did they tell you about where the wealth is coming from? I’m genuinely curious to know.

            • jpreston2005@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              you’re wrong. I’m not interested in explaining why you’re wrong, maybe someone else will.