Facebook keeps recommending political groups(themarkup.org)
themarkup.org
Facebook keeps recommending political groups
https://themarkup.org/citizen-browser/2021/06/24/after-repeatedly-promising-not-to-facebook-keeps-recommending-political-groups-to-its-users
254 comments
> It’s not really honest to expect Facebook to correctly classify every single, tiny group created on the entire website.
I agree, but that's what Facebook said it would do. IMO the onus is on Facebook here. They promised to do something they surely knew they couldn't do. I suspect because the alternative is admitting that they don't really have any control over their recommendation algorithm, and the logical conclusion to that is to stop recommending things. But they don't ever want to do that because their engagement numbers would tank.
I agree, but that's what Facebook said it would do. IMO the onus is on Facebook here. They promised to do something they surely knew they couldn't do. I suspect because the alternative is admitting that they don't really have any control over their recommendation algorithm, and the logical conclusion to that is to stop recommending things. But they don't ever want to do that because their engagement numbers would tank.
I don’t think it’s reasonable to interpret their statement to mean that their user-submitted content classification would never be without fault. I think people are forgetting the scale of Facebook, or even the scale of the global internet population.
If Facebook made a change to stop recommending groups that had been categorized as political, that’s a fair fulfillment of their statement. If some users are miscategorizing their user-created groups and some of those aren’t caught by automated filters and some of those are slipping into recommendations somewhere, we’re starting to play a game of “gotchas”.
What do people actually want from Facebook? 100% perfect categorization of 100% user-generated content is impossible, and I think most people on HN understand that. So is there some degree of “good enough” that would be acceptable, or is this the type of issue that will generate outrage as long as someone can find an isolated exception somewhere? If it’s the latter, I think we’re bound to wear out the patience of reasonable people following along.
If Facebook made a change to stop recommending groups that had been categorized as political, that’s a fair fulfillment of their statement. If some users are miscategorizing their user-created groups and some of those aren’t caught by automated filters and some of those are slipping into recommendations somewhere, we’re starting to play a game of “gotchas”.
What do people actually want from Facebook? 100% perfect categorization of 100% user-generated content is impossible, and I think most people on HN understand that. So is there some degree of “good enough” that would be acceptable, or is this the type of issue that will generate outrage as long as someone can find an isolated exception somewhere? If it’s the latter, I think we’re bound to wear out the patience of reasonable people following along.
I think you touch on the core problem. That 100% perfect categorization is impossible. Also, it turns out that items which are false or angry are more likely to go viral, be it in science or politics:
https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2021-05-24/...
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-57558028
Unfortunately it turns out that we humans over-react, and over-spread, falsehoods. So I want both the "reshare and retweet" banned as features on social media platforms if section 230 protections are to remain.
The solution isn't to encroach on the 1st amendment right to say anything you want. It's to take away the 'gasoline' of the reshare, that has an innate bias to falsehoods, from spreading them. That's the first thing I want Facebook to change. And the second is to go back to enforcing that every account is tied to a real person. It was great when "Facebook" was about real people back in 2004 - it should get back to that original vision!
https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2021-05-24/...
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-57558028
Unfortunately it turns out that we humans over-react, and over-spread, falsehoods. So I want both the "reshare and retweet" banned as features on social media platforms if section 230 protections are to remain.
The solution isn't to encroach on the 1st amendment right to say anything you want. It's to take away the 'gasoline' of the reshare, that has an innate bias to falsehoods, from spreading them. That's the first thing I want Facebook to change. And the second is to go back to enforcing that every account is tied to a real person. It was great when "Facebook" was about real people back in 2004 - it should get back to that original vision!
>>The solution isn't to encroach on the 1st amendment right to say anything you want. It's to take away the 'gasoline' of the reshare, that has an innate bias to falsehoods, from spreading them.
How is the "gasoline" of resharing any different than forwarding an e-mail or retweeting? Copy+Paste has been here since Usenet.
>>That's the first thing I want Facebook to change. And the second is to go back to enforcing that every account is tied to a real person. It was great when "Facebook" was about real people back in 2004 - it should get back to that original vision!
The real name requirement is part of what makes Facebook suck. It provides a false sense of security and creates an extra burden for those who have odd names like "Abcde" [1]. I don't see how Facebook is going to be able to determine whether a name in non-Latin letters is "real" or not. In 2004, Facebook was limited to a few Ivy League schools. Now it has 4e9 people to sort through. If governments have a hard time tracking even 1/4 that many people, even a panopticon like the Chinese state, what makes you think Facebook will find a solution to that problem?
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abcde
How is the "gasoline" of resharing any different than forwarding an e-mail or retweeting? Copy+Paste has been here since Usenet.
>>That's the first thing I want Facebook to change. And the second is to go back to enforcing that every account is tied to a real person. It was great when "Facebook" was about real people back in 2004 - it should get back to that original vision!
The real name requirement is part of what makes Facebook suck. It provides a false sense of security and creates an extra burden for those who have odd names like "Abcde" [1]. I don't see how Facebook is going to be able to determine whether a name in non-Latin letters is "real" or not. In 2004, Facebook was limited to a few Ivy League schools. Now it has 4e9 people to sort through. If governments have a hard time tracking even 1/4 that many people, even a panopticon like the Chinese state, what makes you think Facebook will find a solution to that problem?
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abcde
They agreed to do it and haven't done it. As Facebook was in the best position out of anyone to say whether they could or could not accomplish this moderation and said they could even though they apparently can't or don't want to, anything beyond that fact is really very meaningless.
> It’s not really honest to expect Facebook to correctly classify every single, tiny group created on the entire website.
Why is it reasonable for Facebook to promote content it hasn't classified?
Why is it reasonable for Facebook to promote content it hasn't classified?
The same reason it’s reasonable for Hacker News to promote user-submitted links that have been voted up by users. Before being individually vetted ahead of time by moderators.
Do we really want to go down the road of restricting websites from sharing user-generated content? That’s a non-starter for the free internet.
Do we really want to go down the road of restricting websites from sharing user-generated content? That’s a non-starter for the free internet.
That's not a fair comparison. Hacker News isn't making user based recommendations based on the content of the article or user preferences, Facebook is.
FB's recommendation algorithm is tuned to promote (by their own admittance), divisive content because it promotes engagement. AND it's tuned based on specific user data.
HN doesn't recommend specific content to specific users. It's based on site-wide upvotes, downvotes, and flagging, and doesn't take the actual content of the links in to account at all.
I'm not saying you can legislate the difference and stop FB while keeping a free internet. But HN and FB are not remotely doing the same thing and is not an argument why it's fine for FB to continue doing what they're doing.
FB's recommendation algorithm is tuned to promote (by their own admittance), divisive content because it promotes engagement. AND it's tuned based on specific user data.
HN doesn't recommend specific content to specific users. It's based on site-wide upvotes, downvotes, and flagging, and doesn't take the actual content of the links in to account at all.
I'm not saying you can legislate the difference and stop FB while keeping a free internet. But HN and FB are not remotely doing the same thing and is not an argument why it's fine for FB to continue doing what they're doing.
> That's not a fair comparison. Hacker News isn't making user based recommendations based on the content of the article or user preferences, Facebook is.
Okay, then consider Reddit. Or Twitter. Or YouTube. Or Spotify's podcast recommendations. or Netflix's what to watch next recommendations.
Letting users indicate their interests and then receive recommendations according to their interests is core to every recommendation engine on the internet. Obviously we're not going to ban recommendations engines or disallow recommending content to users based on what they want to see.
Okay, then consider Reddit. Or Twitter. Or YouTube. Or Spotify's podcast recommendations. or Netflix's what to watch next recommendations.
Letting users indicate their interests and then receive recommendations according to their interests is core to every recommendation engine on the internet. Obviously we're not going to ban recommendations engines or disallow recommending content to users based on what they want to see.
We don't need to draw a specific line where it becomes a problem to be able to say that Facebook has been irresponsible with their recommendations. Though on that note, Youtube's recommendations have also been implicated as pipeline for radicalizing people.
There exist recommendations engines who’s goals are solely to be useful. It’s the recommendation engines tuned to drive engagement for the purpose of advertising that are the issue. It’s a business model (enabled by tech) problem.
The group, formed in December, is private and relatively small (57 members)
It's not reasonable to promote a private group.
It's not reasonable to promote a private group.
If moderating their content is necessary to maintain a healthy platform (in terms that our society determines), then their inability to moderate that content means they are too big and need to be cut down to a manageable size.
What real good has Facebook done? Even the few examples that can be mustered don't compete with the ongoing damage it does to our society. If they can't handle these problems at this scale (global X-billion users scale) then they should scale down.
What real good has Facebook done? Even the few examples that can be mustered don't compete with the ongoing damage it does to our society. If they can't handle these problems at this scale (global X-billion users scale) then they should scale down.
As a society we don't restrict fundamental civil rights such as freedom of speech for individuals or corporations just because it might cause dune vaguely defined "damage". The legal bar is higher than that, as it should be.
No but we do have anti-trust law
That's a non sequitur. Antitrust law has no relevance to content moderation policies or free speech rights.
The argument was that Facebook is so big that they’re a danger. Limiting their speech is not compatible with US law, as you mention.
So the proper solution is not to limit what they can say. It’s to stop them being so big that they are a danger.
So the proper solution is not to limit what they can say. It’s to stop them being so big that they are a danger.
Who gets to decide what's "dangerous" and on what terms? What if I disagree with that assessment? What does my view count for?
We can demand companies do whatever we, as a society, deem important to do.
If their scale and cost structure makes complying with that demand "impossible" then it's completely reasonably to propose that it's their scale and business model that's the problem, not the nature of the demand.
If their scale and cost structure makes complying with that demand "impossible" then it's completely reasonably to propose that it's their scale and business model that's the problem, not the nature of the demand.
> It’s not really honest to expect Facebook to correctly classify every single, tiny group created on the entire website
I think it's entirely reasonable[0]. I'm sick and tired of this bogus idea that large websites are simply too big to be moderated by human beings. It's bullshit propaganda that is invented by companies that don't want to spend the money to do it.
[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/28/business/facebook-earning...
I think it's entirely reasonable[0]. I'm sick and tired of this bogus idea that large websites are simply too big to be moderated by human beings. It's bullshit propaganda that is invented by companies that don't want to spend the money to do it.
[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/28/business/facebook-earning...
The issue is that FB is not doing a good job - still recommending “Progressive Democrats of Nevada,” “Michigan Republicans”, “Bernie Sanders for President 2020,” “Liberty lovers for Ted Cruz,” “Philly for Elizabeth Warren”. Sure, it's non-trivial, but if these fall through the cracks, then you're not trying hard enough.
My guess is that there was a mixture of:
1) This not being a priority for FB
2) FB Eng / PM being too clever for its own good and not doing the obvious thing of substring matching ("not scalable"). (Arguably a part of (1) - if it's really important, you'd have the team to maintain a list of banned strings).
3) Just a plain old bug (although arguably this is a subcategory of (1)).
> “Progressive Democrats of Nevada,” “Michigan Republicans”, “Bernie Sanders for President 2020,” “Liberty lovers for Ted Cruz,” “Philly for Elizabeth Warren”
For classifying things like this as political, a typical bayesian 'spam' filter would perform very well.
For classifying things like this as political, a typical bayesian 'spam' filter would perform very well.
Then maybe they shouldn't allow everyone to create these groups on their platform.
If I run a music venue, and every weekend I sell out 1,000 seats... BUT every weekend 1 person shoots another person... they're not going to let me keep having concerts. I can't throw my hands up and say "well there are just too many people at this event, I can't check them all for guns"
If I run a music venue, and every weekend I sell out 1,000 seats... BUT every weekend 1 person shoots another person... they're not going to let me keep having concerts. I can't throw my hands up and say "well there are just too many people at this event, I can't check them all for guns"
That's a horrible comparison. Creating a political discussion group isn't a violent crime.
Running a music venue isn't a violent crime either, but if I'm failing to moderate and protect the space my business and its customers operate in... I won't have a business for long.
My point is that their excuse of "there's too much volume for us to manage" is complete bologna. Any physical business with a similar issue would be forced to reduce volume to a rate that's manageable. If Facebook can't moderate their content effectively, then they need to either scale their moderation or reduce their content. I'm tired of this "well, it's a hard problem what are you going to do" nonsense.
My point is that their excuse of "there's too much volume for us to manage" is complete bologna. Any physical business with a similar issue would be forced to reduce volume to a rate that's manageable. If Facebook can't moderate their content effectively, then they need to either scale their moderation or reduce their content. I'm tired of this "well, it's a hard problem what are you going to do" nonsense.
Yes it is when they go around marketing that they are the best social network out there
It is when a billionaire and a company of chosen few can weild so much power over people everywhere
It is when a billionaire and a company of chosen few can weild so much power over people everywhere
Have we reached a decade of "AI will fix it" yet, or are we still a couple of years off?
I feel like so many issues around content moderation have been waved off by the big tech companies as being solved by algorithms and yet time and time again it's made very clear that algorithms alone aren't going to solve these problems.
I used to think it was because the engineers and managers involved believed so deeply in the potential but now I'm pretty sure it's because higher ups know the alternative (e.g. hiring humans, or abandoning money-generating algorithmic feeds) would be expensive and they'll throw anything and everything they can at the wall to avoid having to do it.
I feel like so many issues around content moderation have been waved off by the big tech companies as being solved by algorithms and yet time and time again it's made very clear that algorithms alone aren't going to solve these problems.
I used to think it was because the engineers and managers involved believed so deeply in the potential but now I'm pretty sure it's because higher ups know the alternative (e.g. hiring humans, or abandoning money-generating algorithmic feeds) would be expensive and they'll throw anything and everything they can at the wall to avoid having to do it.
I don't love defending Facebook, but as of last year, they employed 15 THOUSAND content moderators (https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnkoetsier/2020/06/09/300000-...)
Content moderation at Facebook scale is really, really hard. Even for real people.
Again I hate to defend Facebook, but your comment is very misleading by ignoring that Facebook HAS hired humans to help solve the content moderation problem. A lot of them.
Content moderation at Facebook scale is really, really hard. Even for real people.
Again I hate to defend Facebook, but your comment is very misleading by ignoring that Facebook HAS hired humans to help solve the content moderation problem. A lot of them.
The clear implication here is surely that 15,000 is not enough. Which is maybe not surprising when Facebook claims to have 2.85 billion active users. By that metric 15k isn't really all that much.
> Content moderation at Facebook scale is really, really hard. Even for real people.
Maybe you could even argue that it's impossible. The question then is what to do about it. One answer could be "stop using recommendation algorithms you do not control", but that would harm Facebook's profits.
> Content moderation at Facebook scale is really, really hard. Even for real people.
Maybe you could even argue that it's impossible. The question then is what to do about it. One answer could be "stop using recommendation algorithms you do not control", but that would harm Facebook's profits.
My guess (and this is purely a guess) is that it's "solvable" to within some threshold. But what is that threshold? I have no idea. If you turn the knobs too far, you'll presumably end up with more false positives. What's an acceptable threshold for false positives? I have no idea.
If you asked me 3 years ago, I would have naively answered that technology can do a much better job consistently enforcing moderation rules than our current technology actually can. Realizing how hard it is, even for "trained" humans, eviscerated that naivety real fast.
I definitely agree it's, literally, impossible for 15k moderators to accurately review anywhere near enough posts to get to whatever that acceptable threshold is. I'm also not convinced doubling that number is enough either.
There's always a certain arbitrariness and subjective interpretation in content moderation. Someone will always end up unhappy with the result.
If you asked me 3 years ago, I would have naively answered that technology can do a much better job consistently enforcing moderation rules than our current technology actually can. Realizing how hard it is, even for "trained" humans, eviscerated that naivety real fast.
I definitely agree it's, literally, impossible for 15k moderators to accurately review anywhere near enough posts to get to whatever that acceptable threshold is. I'm also not convinced doubling that number is enough either.
There's always a certain arbitrariness and subjective interpretation in content moderation. Someone will always end up unhappy with the result.
Using algorithms to determine the order someone sees things in is, in my view, a social media company applying editorial content.
And therefore, if their editor (which is an algorithm for Facebook and Twitter) promotes something that’s slanderous or libelous, Facebook should be held to the same standards as an editor who could be prosecuted for that.
Same with someone who writes something on Facebook. Write something slanderous? You are like a newspaper reporter at this point. Facebook promotes it in the algorithm? Now their algorithm is responsible, too.
Facebook, nor its users, have any significant negative consequences for publishing anything that is false or misleading. Until that changes, I doubt the company’s behavior, nor individual posters, will change.
And therefore, if their editor (which is an algorithm for Facebook and Twitter) promotes something that’s slanderous or libelous, Facebook should be held to the same standards as an editor who could be prosecuted for that.
Same with someone who writes something on Facebook. Write something slanderous? You are like a newspaper reporter at this point. Facebook promotes it in the algorithm? Now their algorithm is responsible, too.
Facebook, nor its users, have any significant negative consequences for publishing anything that is false or misleading. Until that changes, I doubt the company’s behavior, nor individual posters, will change.
That's not a good analogy. "Editorial content" is authored by individuals working for or otherwise associated with the publication, this is not the case with Facebook where content is posted by individuals that have no business relationship to Facebook.
Your feed is not an innocent random sampling of posts and recommendations from the people and topics you follow.
Facebook does need to be held accountable for the damage done by promoting harmful content. They are externalizing grave costs in order to maximizing their advertising income.
Facebook does need to be held accountable for the damage done by promoting harmful content. They are externalizing grave costs in order to maximizing their advertising income.
Plus the number of moderators is irrelevant if they're trained to only remove posts from non-advertisers, or base their decisions on biased "fact-checker" articles.
Aren't those just the "disposable" moderators that have to judge whether an image is child/animal abuse, who work for a while and get burned out with psychological trauma? And they're mostly living in third world countries, so in the eyes of Zuck even more disposable?
Figuring out if a group is political or not needs the knowledge of political figures/parties, and the ability to understand the name of the group in its local language...
Figuring out if a group is political or not needs the knowledge of political figures/parties, and the ability to understand the name of the group in its local language...
Yes, 15000 is a lot. But >2 billion people is a lot more. Wikipedia has far fewer people employed on content moderation yet they seem to fair just fine. This number throwing on Facebook "doing an effort" is an attempt to keep the toxic business model that they have a live at an acceptable rate. How many people would they save for hiring if they'd change the timeline into a chronological one instead of their current one? It'd be much harder to get as much attention than, but also less addictive, which is a net good for every human except for Facebook as a business.
I agree it's not enough. I simply wanted to point out that Facebook, tacitly or otherwise, admits it's not a problem they can solve purely with technology right now (...without making massive changes to their platform that undercut their bottom line, as you said).
Wikipedia has much less content
Wikipedia can also be “moderated” by anyone. If I see spam or incorrect info on Wikipedia, I can edit it myself. Maybe reword things, add references, etc. On social media (FB/IG/etc), I don’t have that choice. My only option is to report it and hope the moderators don’t say “this [x] doesn’t violate our community standards” on a clearly spam/scam account/comment/post.
I’ve reported so much garbage on social media only to be told it’s not a scam or whatever, I’ve practically given up trying.
I’ve reported so much garbage on social media only to be told it’s not a scam or whatever, I’ve practically given up trying.
I mean you can't really do that on Wikipedia anymore. Sure the edit button is there but there's the spiritual equivalent of a PR process now.
True; I’ve definitely had my edits reversed or challenged. But I’ve also made many edits that weren’t (mainly on more niche pages).
Yes. Perhaps that's a clue?
FB's groups are terribly designed if you want to have a conversation and keep a collection of useful information.
They're cleverly designed to keep people scrolling forever on a content treadmill - in no way the same as optimising them for usefulness.
FB's groups are terribly designed if you want to have a conversation and keep a collection of useful information.
They're cleverly designed to keep people scrolling forever on a content treadmill - in no way the same as optimising them for usefulness.
I mean TikTok is the perfectly optimized content treadmill and compared to Facebook and people rave about how good it is. You forget that a lot of the value of social media is passive entertainment to unwind.
That being the case, it seems like Facebook in it's current form shouldn't exist then. It has no natural right to exist, and the harms clearly outweigh any benefits that could be argued.
> I don't love defending Facebook, but as of last year, they employed 15 THOUSAND content moderators
If all that discussions in Facebook happened in cafes, libraries and schools there will be way more "moderators" in that spaces. 15,000 is nothing for a business with 2.85 billion users. That is a little more than 1 moderator for each 200,000 users.
If all that discussions in Facebook happened in cafes, libraries and schools there will be way more "moderators" in that spaces. 15,000 is nothing for a business with 2.85 billion users. That is a little more than 1 moderator for each 200,000 users.
> I don't love defending Facebook, but as of last year, they employed 15 THOUSAND content moderators
Great. Keep going. They clearly need many thousands more - and they can afford it[0].
[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/28/business/facebook-earning...
Great. Keep going. They clearly need many thousands more - and they can afford it[0].
[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/28/business/facebook-earning...
Content moderation is only viable for small-scale communities, we're just yet to accept that.
One of my extended family members works for a FAANG company (not Facebook) on a team that moderates user-generated content. They are actually using AI to great effect, with great results. They have large amounts of manual review and moderation as well, but having AI augment the human intervention and also continuously trained based on human overrides of AI decisions makes the system much more efficient.
What many people don't understand is that even if Facebook employed human moderators to individually review every group, there would still be isolated examples of policy violations slipping through. Human moderators are far from perfect. They can and do make mistakes. At scale, you get some moderators who don't actually care about doing the work, so they start letting things slip through instead of reviewing them. AI is also helpful in flagging human moderator decisions that disagree strongly with AI predictions, which can then be used to catch moderator errors or improve the AI, depending on which is ultimately deemed correct.
It's easy to forget that Facebook has almost 3 billion users. At scales that large, even 99.99% correct content moderation (human or otherwise) will still result in a lot of incorrectly moderated content slipping through.
More commonly, it may not be immediately obvious that content breaks policies, or in this case that a group is political. Or maybe the group started as one thing, but then evolved over time to become highly political. Or maybe they chose a name that sounds innocuous, but is actually very offensive given some obscure context or lingo. The problem is impossible to solve perfectly, so we need to instead focus on setting realistic expectations for what can be done.
What many people don't understand is that even if Facebook employed human moderators to individually review every group, there would still be isolated examples of policy violations slipping through. Human moderators are far from perfect. They can and do make mistakes. At scale, you get some moderators who don't actually care about doing the work, so they start letting things slip through instead of reviewing them. AI is also helpful in flagging human moderator decisions that disagree strongly with AI predictions, which can then be used to catch moderator errors or improve the AI, depending on which is ultimately deemed correct.
It's easy to forget that Facebook has almost 3 billion users. At scales that large, even 99.99% correct content moderation (human or otherwise) will still result in a lot of incorrectly moderated content slipping through.
More commonly, it may not be immediately obvious that content breaks policies, or in this case that a group is political. Or maybe the group started as one thing, but then evolved over time to become highly political. Or maybe they chose a name that sounds innocuous, but is actually very offensive given some obscure context or lingo. The problem is impossible to solve perfectly, so we need to instead focus on setting realistic expectations for what can be done.
> "AI will fix it"
What is the "it"? A society problem or a company problem? I don't think AI is designed to fix society problems. They are designed to make more money for the company, even with the cost of the society.
What is the "it"? A society problem or a company problem? I don't think AI is designed to fix society problems. They are designed to make more money for the company, even with the cost of the society.
While AI isn’t a wand for society’s problems, it isn’t a wand for business problems either.
In both cases AI will do whatever task you design or train it to do.
In both cases AI will do whatever task you design or train it to do.
Even as early as 2013 Facebook was using advanced image recognition to moderate content. They use both humans and sutomated screening
Most social networks operate with a business model/philosophy that the bare minimum of moderation will promote uploading and engagement, capturing the biggest user base, while also saving on expenses. Moderation is just for when you achieve market dominance or attention, and the bare minimum is shifted slightly towards a bit more moderation to appease any critical comments, outcries, or changes in expectations.
AI moderation is, and, I think, always has been, a cost saving measure. The effectiveness of it for the health of a platform has always been secondary.
AI moderation is, and, I think, always has been, a cost saving measure. The effectiveness of it for the health of a platform has always been secondary.
The problem is the humans - the users. They keep clicking on outrage-bait, and re-posting it. AIs are not going to fix the humans. They might turn the gain down a bit, they might cut off some of the worst stuff, but they're not going to fix the problem. The problem is us.
Sure, the root of the problem is the humans.
But IMO you minimize the importance of controlling that gain. HN is full of humans, too, but here the worst/craziest stuff usually gets reduced visibility. On the big "social" platforms, they crank that crap up to 11.
But IMO you minimize the importance of controlling that gain. HN is full of humans, too, but here the worst/craziest stuff usually gets reduced visibility. On the big "social" platforms, they crank that crap up to 11.
I'd love to see more discussion about what success actually looks like for content moderation on facebook (or the internet, really).
We don't seem to care that the legal system doesn't get remotely close to catching everyone who commits an ACTUAL crime so why do we need to be perfect (whatever that even means) for content moderation?
We don't seem to care that the legal system doesn't get remotely close to catching everyone who commits an ACTUAL crime so why do we need to be perfect (whatever that even means) for content moderation?
What makes you think we're not already in that decade, and this is what it looks like when AI "fixes" things?
Are you familiar with AI Alignment? When AI does work, it does not always align with human values and motives. And even if it did, it only aligns with the values and motives of its creators.
Are you familiar with AI Alignment? When AI does work, it does not always align with human values and motives. And even if it did, it only aligns with the values and motives of its creators.
Yes. I think it’s a common view that realigning Facebook’s values and motives is part of any improvement.
Thus the public criticism.
Thus the public criticism.
From the article.
>we used keyword-based classification to assess whether they contained support for politicians, movements, parties, or ideologies
They don't need AI to improve this. A boring old keyword search would improve things. Sure, classifying groups perfectly is a difficult problem especially at Facebook's scale. But this shows almost a complete lack of effort when groups like "Bernie Sanders for President 2020" and "Liberty lovers for Ted Cruz" are recommended.
>we used keyword-based classification to assess whether they contained support for politicians, movements, parties, or ideologies
They don't need AI to improve this. A boring old keyword search would improve things. Sure, classifying groups perfectly is a difficult problem especially at Facebook's scale. But this shows almost a complete lack of effort when groups like "Bernie Sanders for President 2020" and "Liberty lovers for Ted Cruz" are recommended.
“If people didn’t see manipulative social media posts, they’d go back to believing our manipulative mass media broadcasts.”
There is really no way out of this. The age of information being dictated from a handful of corporations in New York is over.
There is really no way out of this. The age of information being dictated from a handful of corporations in New York is over.
At least the latter manipulative broadcasts have a vetting process to root them in some semblance of reality. Then you can rummage among various ones to see truth hidden in plain sight.
But the fight is for the uncritical consumer who isn't going to look beyond the substance. The web overall also provides a vast amount of information that's useful to those who critically sift it even it is arguably harmful to those who uncritically swallow it.
Moreover, the vetting process is an extra added because of mass media's monopoly position - part of "journalist quality" generally. And this has been declining for a while. Partly 'cause of competition from the web but also because of a generally more competitive environment.
Which is to say, we're not going back to the old situation regardless so we may as well appreciate the benefits and drawbacks of each era.
Moreover, the vetting process is an extra added because of mass media's monopoly position - part of "journalist quality" generally. And this has been declining for a while. Partly 'cause of competition from the web but also because of a generally more competitive environment.
Which is to say, we're not going back to the old situation regardless so we may as well appreciate the benefits and drawbacks of each era.
Like the reality of WMDs in Iraq?
That lie came from Colin Powell and the Bush administration, it wasn't manufactured by the media itself.
The parent comment was about vetting information. Clearly the media didn’t do that WRT the WMDs.
It was as "vetted" as could be at the time. They just reported the government's messaging. And when that turned out to be a lie, they reported this as well.
"People being able to directly organize and bypass the established political parties and corporate media entities that currently control the system is bad."
- The established political parties and corporate media entities that currently control the system
- The established political parties and corporate media entities that currently control the system
Spoiler alert: the people "directly organized[ing]" aren't less manipulated, nor less manipulating. The rules have shifted and it's allowed some new players on the field, but it's the exact same game. Took very little time for the "game" to catch up with and overtake the web, in the scheme of things, really.
(though, yes, of course, you're right that entrenched interests will hate this new thing whether or not what I wrote above is true)
(though, yes, of course, you're right that entrenched interests will hate this new thing whether or not what I wrote above is true)
> The rules have shifted and it's allowed some new players on the field, but it's the exact same game.
Yeah this is exactly my point.
Yeah this is exactly my point.
This but its good actually. The opposite of "corporate media" isn't honest factual reporting free of agenda and aligned with the viewers interest. The opposite of "corporate media" is a complete lack of factual investigation, replaced instead by the loud opinions of overconfident charlatans spewing forth bullshit at an unprecedented rate. News orgs print retractions and have a reputation to maintain, but no one is ever going to come back and fact check a facebook rant. Its called a news 'feed' because its served from a trough.
> the loud opinions of overconfident charlatans spewing forth bullshit at an unprecedented rate
You just described corporate media. Ever watched Fox/CNN/MSNBC? Even the NYT and WaPo is going that direction now.
You just described corporate media. Ever watched Fox/CNN/MSNBC? Even the NYT and WaPo is going that direction now.
"Rather than news, the paper (nytimes) began to sell what was, in effect, a creed, an agenda, to a congregation of like-minded souls. Post-journalism “mixes open ideological intentions with a hidden business necessity required for the media to survive,” Mir observes. The new business model required a new style of reporting. Its language aimed to commodify polarization and threat: journalists had to “scare the audience to make it donate.” At stake was survival in the digital storm."
https://www.city-journal.org/journalism-advocacy-over-report...
https://www.city-journal.org/journalism-advocacy-over-report...
There exists just-as-factual non-corporate media. I think Democracy Now! is a good example. Yeah, it's very biased, but I think it's factual reporting.
Where is that quote from? I couldn't find it by searching the text.
> Citizen Browser consists of a paid nationwide panel of Facebook users who automatically send us data from their Facebook feeds.
Is this much different from Cambridge Analytica's "This Is Your Digital Life" (other than being a browser extension rather than an API)?
From the site (https://themarkup.org/citizen-browser/2021/01/05/how-we-buil...): > To protect the privacy of panelists, we automatically strip potential identifiers from their captured Facebook data. The raw data we collect from them is never seen by a person and is automatically deleted after one month.
So they say. CA's data was governed by a TOS, that didn't prevent them from abusing it.
Is this much different from Cambridge Analytica's "This Is Your Digital Life" (other than being a browser extension rather than an API)?
From the site (https://themarkup.org/citizen-browser/2021/01/05/how-we-buil...): > To protect the privacy of panelists, we automatically strip potential identifiers from their captured Facebook data. The raw data we collect from them is never seen by a person and is automatically deleted after one month.
So they say. CA's data was governed by a TOS, that didn't prevent them from abusing it.
As long as it's opt-in with implied consent, what does it matter? This is exactly how Nielsen measures tv ratings.
Well the issue with CA was that users who installed the quiz not only shared their info, but also content shared privately by their friends.
[deleted]
I love that the whole discourse revolves around the problem of stoopid voters having wrong thoughts and sharing wrong opinions.
I wonder what “political” even means. A group of people who like Ben Shapiro will be classified as political, I guess. But what about an LGBT+ youth group? Is it politics? Is it Facebook that decides what issue is political and controversial and which issue should be considered the de facto norm?
I wonder what “political” even means. A group of people who like Ben Shapiro will be classified as political, I guess. But what about an LGBT+ youth group? Is it politics? Is it Facebook that decides what issue is political and controversial and which issue should be considered the de facto norm?
You're following into the trap of "there are two sexual orientations: straight and political."
You can say that everything is politics and power dynamics. That the existence of a comic book club at your high school is the political act of organizing and normalizing these freaks and nerds who indoctrinate good christian boys away from football and family values with their superhero propaganda. The problem with reasoning like this is that it creates this world view where everything revolves this lotus of "establishment" and must exist in opposition to it. Where really it's just people who like comics and want to share this thing they like.
The same with how LGBT groups are portrayed. There are people engaging in politics on issues like gay marriage and trans rights but that doesn't make an LGBT youth group set up to give community to people who feel alone and marginalized a place to be themselves and make friends a political group.
But Ben Sharpie, his content is literally just political outrage bait designed to push a very specific narrative for the purpose of changing the political tide. And since that's all that he and people like him do day in and day out it's why they assume that that's what our comic book club must be doing as well. Bleh.
You know what we do in our LGBT youth group, play Super Smash Bros, bake cookies, and watch gay rom coms.
Our Discord is just a stream of people calling each other and random things gay, a deep fried meme of Lord Farquaad saying 'E', a twitter screencap about how attractive girls are with suspenders, a meme of Ferris from Re:Zero saying "excited gay noises" with a story about how a stranger called her miss in public, and someone suggesting we have a cottagecore theme night.
You can say that everything is politics and power dynamics. That the existence of a comic book club at your high school is the political act of organizing and normalizing these freaks and nerds who indoctrinate good christian boys away from football and family values with their superhero propaganda. The problem with reasoning like this is that it creates this world view where everything revolves this lotus of "establishment" and must exist in opposition to it. Where really it's just people who like comics and want to share this thing they like.
The same with how LGBT groups are portrayed. There are people engaging in politics on issues like gay marriage and trans rights but that doesn't make an LGBT youth group set up to give community to people who feel alone and marginalized a place to be themselves and make friends a political group.
But Ben Sharpie, his content is literally just political outrage bait designed to push a very specific narrative for the purpose of changing the political tide. And since that's all that he and people like him do day in and day out it's why they assume that that's what our comic book club must be doing as well. Bleh.
You know what we do in our LGBT youth group, play Super Smash Bros, bake cookies, and watch gay rom coms.
Our Discord is just a stream of people calling each other and random things gay, a deep fried meme of Lord Farquaad saying 'E', a twitter screencap about how attractive girls are with suspenders, a meme of Ferris from Re:Zero saying "excited gay noises" with a story about how a stranger called her miss in public, and someone suggesting we have a cottagecore theme night.
I think that was the poster's whole point though.
Name the people you trust at Facebook to make that same distinction you just made in your post.
Name the process you as a consumer can use to hold those at Facebook to account when they inevitably get it wrong.
Point me to the highly-transparent records of how and when Facebook employees made that decision.
Obviously none of the above exists and that is the core issue.
Name the people you trust at Facebook to make that same distinction you just made in your post.
Name the process you as a consumer can use to hold those at Facebook to account when they inevitably get it wrong.
Point me to the highly-transparent records of how and when Facebook employees made that decision.
Obviously none of the above exists and that is the core issue.
I'm not so sure because "what issue is political and controversial and which issue should be considered the de facto norm" misses the distinction. Apparently what make a social club for LGBT people political or not is how "normal" it is.
I think you're point is 100% right that Facebook is a black box of moderation with basically no accountability outside of getting enough journalists to raise a stink on your behalf. But the issue is this perception that LGBT spaces are inherently political and that Facebook is just giving them a pass because of cultural favoritism. Because the answer is no, LGBT youth groups aren't political and Facebook isn't categorizing them as such so there isn't much to talk about unless you think they are.
I think you're point is 100% right that Facebook is a black box of moderation with basically no accountability outside of getting enough journalists to raise a stink on your behalf. But the issue is this perception that LGBT spaces are inherently political and that Facebook is just giving them a pass because of cultural favoritism. Because the answer is no, LGBT youth groups aren't political and Facebook isn't categorizing them as such so there isn't much to talk about unless you think they are.
>Apparently what make a social club for LGBT people political or not is how "normal" it is.
In the context of outside perception it partially is. The more normalized LGBT culture is, the less bigots you have who immediately label anything LBGT as political.
In the context of outside perception it partially is. The more normalized LGBT culture is, the less bigots you have who immediately label anything LBGT as political.
Amen, but it sure does suck that we have to wait for that doesn’t it?
>Because the answer is no, LGBT youth groups aren't political
None of them can ever be political? Really?
Obviously groups realted to any politically-adjacent topic can run the gambit from entirely political to totally divorced from any politics or activism.
I thought you were implying the first poster was not aware of that fact is all.
Regardless, thinking Facebook (or anyone) is in any sort of position to decide this is a total farce, at least to my eyes.
(Waited to post... Got my account rate limited cuz my fellow liberals downvoted me w/o comment. Seems like HN might not be a good place for reasonable discussion on controversial topics.)
None of them can ever be political? Really?
Obviously groups realted to any politically-adjacent topic can run the gambit from entirely political to totally divorced from any politics or activism.
I thought you were implying the first poster was not aware of that fact is all.
Regardless, thinking Facebook (or anyone) is in any sort of position to decide this is a total farce, at least to my eyes.
(Waited to post... Got my account rate limited cuz my fellow liberals downvoted me w/o comment. Seems like HN might not be a good place for reasonable discussion on controversial topics.)
Oh come on, do you really not recognize a difference between groups which are inherently political and groups which are incidentally political? A sewing circle that decides to participate in their local county’s get out the vote campaign is now acting politically despite the fact that sewing is not a political activity. The same is true for LGBT communities and spaces. So your question boils down to what if an LGBT youth group started acting politically, well then I guess they would be a political organization then but that isn’t a very meaningful statement.
The core of the issue is when you have political figureheads very carefully craft a narrative where all LGBT existence is political. You can’t host A support group for trans kids because people who see the mere existence of trans individuals as a political threat label it as indoctrination. You can’t host a Christmas for LGBT folks who aren’t accepted because it will be labeled stealing their children away from their families.
The fact that you consider all activities queer folk do to be adjacent to politics is so frustrating. It’s not a coincidence the root post used LGBT youth group as the ambiguous example and not a book club.
The core of the issue is when you have political figureheads very carefully craft a narrative where all LGBT existence is political. You can’t host A support group for trans kids because people who see the mere existence of trans individuals as a political threat label it as indoctrination. You can’t host a Christmas for LGBT folks who aren’t accepted because it will be labeled stealing their children away from their families.
The fact that you consider all activities queer folk do to be adjacent to politics is so frustrating. It’s not a coincidence the root post used LGBT youth group as the ambiguous example and not a book club.
>The fact that you consider all activities queer folk do to be adjacent to politics is so frustrating.
First of all I want to make clear I do not think this and never said this. But yes, many would consider LGBT groups to be a "politically adjacent topic" (to quote myself), just as groups like gun enthusiasts or crime watch networks would be. If literacy became a political hot topic then yes, book clubs would be politically adjacent too.
No one here is arguing Facebook or anyone else should consider your particular LGBT group 'political' though because it clearly is not.
>The core of the issue is when you have political figureheads very carefully craft a narrative where all LGBT existence is political.
In fact the "core" of this entire post, topic, and thread is Facebook censorship, not political narratives around LGBT issues. I share your opinion that even modern liberal society is way behind on the issue you bring up, but that's all the more reason to distrust labeling by FB. So sorry for the confusion, but I'm glad we agree groups like yours should not be censored.
First of all I want to make clear I do not think this and never said this. But yes, many would consider LGBT groups to be a "politically adjacent topic" (to quote myself), just as groups like gun enthusiasts or crime watch networks would be. If literacy became a political hot topic then yes, book clubs would be politically adjacent too.
No one here is arguing Facebook or anyone else should consider your particular LGBT group 'political' though because it clearly is not.
>The core of the issue is when you have political figureheads very carefully craft a narrative where all LGBT existence is political.
In fact the "core" of this entire post, topic, and thread is Facebook censorship, not political narratives around LGBT issues. I share your opinion that even modern liberal society is way behind on the issue you bring up, but that's all the more reason to distrust labeling by FB. So sorry for the confusion, but I'm glad we agree groups like yours should not be censored.
Facebook doesn't decide, they just enforce.
Some shadowy group of "our betters" does the deciding, and somehow these decisions appear in TV personalities with remarkable swiftness.
"Sociology isn't a hard science" is a cover story.
Some shadowy group of "our betters" does the deciding, and somehow these decisions appear in TV personalities with remarkable swiftness.
"Sociology isn't a hard science" is a cover story.
It's because people yell at them on Twitter. This isn't "shadowy".
>>Facebook doesn't decide, they just enforce.
If the reversal on the ban regarding discussion of the lab leak hypothesis gives any indication, Facebook definitively does decide.
If the reversal on the ban regarding discussion of the lab leak hypothesis gives any indication, Facebook definitively does decide.
I don't want social media enforcing anything either, especially if it comes from the elitists or our government. The latter breaks all sorts of constitutional amendments. They're using a middle man to claim they're not stomping on the constitution.
Meanwhile, YouTube continues to force a coronavirus section in my recommendations despite me hiding it over and over again. It's just an annoyance but still.
Youtube gets way too little blame for radicalizing a large chunk of angry/confused people imo. I watched a video one time that I guess was alt-right-adjacent. Youtube immediately started recommending more hardcore basically racist content intended to induce more anger - leading my right down the rabbit hole if I wanted to go. I had to train it to stop doing that.
Instagram seems to have done the same thing for a bunch of people in the wellness community - pulling them some of them down into the Q-rabbit hole.
I truly despise the algorithms and blame them for most of the problem.
Instagram seems to have done the same thing for a bunch of people in the wellness community - pulling them some of them down into the Q-rabbit hole.
I truly despise the algorithms and blame them for most of the problem.
To solve this, I avoid using YouTube for discovering new videos because I don't believe the recommendation system has my interests in mind (e.g. spending my time more enjoyably). I've installed a free browser add-on to hide all YouTube recommendations in the sidebar (Distraction Free YouTube for Firefox).
It's more than an annoyance, they are clearly pushing an agenda.
I don't think so, those banners are pure virtue signal. An attempt to look good to the market they've determined is the most profitable to align with.
If they were actually trying to change minds, they have so many better tools than an annoying banner that only makes you dig in harder on whatever you already believed.
If they were actually trying to change minds, they have so many better tools than an annoying banner that only makes you dig in harder on whatever you already believed.
Aren't they 'virtue signaling' by pushing a 'virtuous' agenda? These don't seem mutually exclusive to me.
Yeah, maybe I should have said "promoting" an agenda rather than pushing, for whatever difference it makes. Virtue signaling is the motivation, I agree. Nobody at YouTube knows anything about virology or vaccinations, nor do the vast majority of the celebrity creators of most of the videos they are promoting under that particular banner.
"Google FUNDED virus research carried out by Wuhan-linked scientist Peter Daszak for over a decade, new report reveals, amid accusations Big Tech has silenced COVID lab leak theory"
If this is true now you know why Google has pushed so hard on controlling any information around it.
If this is true now you know why Google has pushed so hard on controlling any information around it.
Meanwhile, I'm co-administering a little Facebook page for a political project and would really like to see it recommended to people. The whole point of being on Facebook is to get more exposition.
I wish people would stop seeing politics as inherently filthy, as opposed to other "hobbies" or volunteerships which are clean. Not all politics are about self-interest; I would argue most activists have the greater good in mind (even though they might disagree vehemently on what that is).
I wish people would stop seeing politics as inherently filthy, as opposed to other "hobbies" or volunteerships which are clean. Not all politics are about self-interest; I would argue most activists have the greater good in mind (even though they might disagree vehemently on what that is).
Probably because political filth outnumbers thoughtfulness by a landslide, Russian trolls nonwithstanding.
Long time ago i created a facebook account. I remember vividly the moment when some form asked my to volunteer my religious beliefs. At that moment I knew we had entered the twilight zone.
We are not out of it yet and, for all I know, we might never be.
We are not out of it yet and, for all I know, we might never be.
Isn't it known that Facebook is aware the more enraged you are, the more engaged you are.
You have an entire outrage culture of if it bleeds it leads, you can either be a part of this or not.
In the last few years I've had to cut out most social media and online dating because it made me very miserable. With the time I've gained back I've improved my career, dated absolutely amazing people, and found more peace. Feeling good about yourself is free, but if you feel good about yourself you don't need to argue on Facebook about things which ultimately affect you very little if at all.
You have an entire outrage culture of if it bleeds it leads, you can either be a part of this or not.
In the last few years I've had to cut out most social media and online dating because it made me very miserable. With the time I've gained back I've improved my career, dated absolutely amazing people, and found more peace. Feeling good about yourself is free, but if you feel good about yourself you don't need to argue on Facebook about things which ultimately affect you very little if at all.
I feel as though a comment similar to this appear on every Facebook-related topic. And don't get me wrong, you're absolutely right! I've also cut out Facebook from my life as much as I can and I'm happier for it.
But "everyone just needs to cut out that bad stuff!" doesn't really work on a societal scale. Not to sound hyperbolic but I do feel as though the social media era has caused widespread addiction to the dopamine hits these apps provide and I don't think everyone is going to stop doing it just because someone tells them it would be good for them to do it. IMO society is far better off for the concerted campaigns that were fought against smoking. Maybe something similar is needed here.
But "everyone just needs to cut out that bad stuff!" doesn't really work on a societal scale. Not to sound hyperbolic but I do feel as though the social media era has caused widespread addiction to the dopamine hits these apps provide and I don't think everyone is going to stop doing it just because someone tells them it would be good for them to do it. IMO society is far better off for the concerted campaigns that were fought against smoking. Maybe something similar is needed here.
Not only that, but putting the responsibility on the individual is a classic narrative used by companies to pass buck onto the consumer. It's basically a divide-and-conquer tactic, because it undermines the concept of taking collective action.
It's the "reduce, reuse, recycle" of this generation.
This was a fine enough message until corporations got us to forget that it was meant to be applied in that order. Reduction of consumption is paramount, but bad for corporate profit, so corporations promoted the idea of recycling being just as good if not better than reduction.
Agree. I believe in a short while, maybe after some more congressional inquiry, or maybe another political fiasco, questioning the mental health effects of social media is going to be a mainstream idea. Tooter, Fakebook, et al will be on the defensive, but it will be the modern care-y feel-y corporate message version, encouraging us to use social media “responsibly” while still manufacturing an addictive and harmful product.
How does "everyone should use Facebook less" undermine collective action? Isn't it a call for collective action?
You don't collectively use facebook less, you just use facebook less. Things that are collective actions require some sort of coordination and planning.
Yeah collective action would be moving your friend group onto an alternative platform. Which is what we should be doing.
But it’s not a call for coercion.
People can’t be trusted to make decisions for themselves because cigarettes / alcohol / social media / sugar / pornography is addictive. And since their bad choices have negative consequences on third parties because of health care costs / bad politics / family breakdown, we should get to tell them what to do.
People can’t be trusted to make decisions for themselves because cigarettes / alcohol / social media / sugar / pornography is addictive. And since their bad choices have negative consequences on third parties because of health care costs / bad politics / family breakdown, we should get to tell them what to do.
So you're against age limits on alcohol purchases? You're against banning or limiting advertising tobacco products in public spaces?
I’m against treating adults like children, but I’m ok with treating children like children.
Exactly.
I consider social media to be largely harmful, but so is beer and soda. Life is too short to be angry about what others chose to do.
I consider social media to be largely harmful, but so is beer and soda. Life is too short to be angry about what others chose to do.
Because it suggests that the only course of action against these kinds of practices requires individual choices to not use Facebook.
Isn't that what collective action is? Individuals all agreeing to take action?
You're confusing one ingredient in a dish for the dish. I agree that it's an important ingredient though.
Where it falls short is that individual choices cannot fix systemic issues larger than the individual. That requires a systemic fix pushed for by collective action. And sure, collective action is built on individual choices to join that collective action but there's more to it than that.
Moving away from Facebook is good, but it does not protect you from the next predatory practice unless collective preventative measures are taken.
Where it falls short is that individual choices cannot fix systemic issues larger than the individual. That requires a systemic fix pushed for by collective action. And sure, collective action is built on individual choices to join that collective action but there's more to it than that.
Moving away from Facebook is good, but it does not protect you from the next predatory practice unless collective preventative measures are taken.
I'm sure we can have both. A call for collective action and change through regulation or legislation.
For many it would be very easy to just cut down on social media or stop altogether and find alternatives for the few things that are good about fb. I did it and I surely don't have any more willpower than the average person. For the rest, let's help them make the right choice to break the circle of addiction, talk to your friends, talk to your family, maybe reconsider what's important for you and whether you need that job at a company that makes many people's lives miserable even if it pays well. On top of that, let's try to convince lawmakers to introduce legislation and regulation. You need to do all the things, and everybody needs to, otherwise nothing will change.
For many it would be very easy to just cut down on social media or stop altogether and find alternatives for the few things that are good about fb. I did it and I surely don't have any more willpower than the average person. For the rest, let's help them make the right choice to break the circle of addiction, talk to your friends, talk to your family, maybe reconsider what's important for you and whether you need that job at a company that makes many people's lives miserable even if it pays well. On top of that, let's try to convince lawmakers to introduce legislation and regulation. You need to do all the things, and everybody needs to, otherwise nothing will change.
Can you elaborate on what legislation and regulation would yield positive effects with no negative externalities/regulatory capture that prevents any new companies from competing with Facebook?
I'm obviously not an expert but what I can imagine is
- requirement of social media companies to correct the record and show people where they were the target of misinformation
- childhood development informed minimum age requirement for social media use
- banning of ultra-specific targeting the way it is done right now
- banning of political advertising
The list goes on and, again, obviously I'm not an expert in all the externalities, I just see a problem and would like to see it addressed. I have suggestions but am open to other suggestions. Anything that's not "the market will fix it".
- requirement of social media companies to correct the record and show people where they were the target of misinformation
- childhood development informed minimum age requirement for social media use
- banning of ultra-specific targeting the way it is done right now
- banning of political advertising
The list goes on and, again, obviously I'm not an expert in all the externalities, I just see a problem and would like to see it addressed. I have suggestions but am open to other suggestions. Anything that's not "the market will fix it".
show people where they were the target of misinformation
Ah perfect, let Dorsey and Zuck be the arbiters of truth.
That definitely has not backfired during covid right? As I recall both platforms suppressed any mention of a lab leak theory as “conspiracy”.
Ah perfect, let Dorsey and Zuck be the arbiters of truth.
That definitely has not backfired during covid right? As I recall both platforms suppressed any mention of a lab leak theory as “conspiracy”.
> Ah perfect, let Dorsey and Zuck be the arbiters of truth.
That's not what I said. It could very well come from an independent organization. Fb and others would just be responsible for putting it in front of the people's eyes that they have shown disinformation to. Is that a perfect solution? Probably not but what the hell else are we gonna do?
What do you suggest we do instead?
That's not what I said. It could very well come from an independent organization. Fb and others would just be responsible for putting it in front of the people's eyes that they have shown disinformation to. Is that a perfect solution? Probably not but what the hell else are we gonna do?
What do you suggest we do instead?
Delete facebook, the company?
Regarding trying to get individuals to change their behavior: I mean, a lot of social media posts are just people reposting things from meme groups, maybe adding a sentence or two here.
If those reposts get no, 1, or 2 likes - which is what I see a lot when occasionally browsing people on my friends list manually from time to time (as they've been unfollowed) - then no one's even reading your reposts or opinions. Why are you doing this? Is this even fun to you?
People might not think of what they are doing because they are bored, or trying to avoid situations, but maybe if explained to them exactly what they are doing and how pointless it is--maybe they will change.
If those reposts get no, 1, or 2 likes - which is what I see a lot when occasionally browsing people on my friends list manually from time to time (as they've been unfollowed) - then no one's even reading your reposts or opinions. Why are you doing this? Is this even fun to you?
People might not think of what they are doing because they are bored, or trying to avoid situations, but maybe if explained to them exactly what they are doing and how pointless it is--maybe they will change.
"The medium is the message".
The message of the current Web is the death of local journalism, deep moats of pillaged user-data protecting monopolists, internationally "democratized" propaganda, and no privacy anywhere.
If you want to change the message, the medium will have to change.
The message of the current Web is the death of local journalism, deep moats of pillaged user-data protecting monopolists, internationally "democratized" propaganda, and no privacy anywhere.
If you want to change the message, the medium will have to change.
I love Facebook. It makes me feel good. It's the best way to publicly share my nature photography, and keep up with distant friends and family. The key is to "hide all from" pages for news, politics, memes, etc so they don't show up when your friends share posts. If I wanted to read biased garbage from the likes of Breitbart or the New York Times I would follow those pages myself.
I agree that the "Hide all from" is important for making Facebook more tolerable. I do the same, but I wish I didn't have to. It seems for every new friend I add, there is a new round of "Hide all from" that I have to do.
"Hide all from" is necessary, but not sufficient. Facebook still uses their algorithm to chose what to show you. It's harder to choose what I want to see when that's going on.
I also wish there was a way to filter out specific topics that people post about, such as sports and politics, and block categories of things like "attempts to promote multi-level marketing products", but unfortunately it's either block the person wholesale or let all their posts show. There's an option to "See less from" a friend, but I have no idea what that does. Once again, I have to hope that the algorithm does the right thing.
I did notice that there was a way to block just a person's stories, which saved me from blocking a family member. She posts incessantly about the makeup she's selling via an MLM, but fortunately she does it only through stories.
"Hide all from" is necessary, but not sufficient. Facebook still uses their algorithm to chose what to show you. It's harder to choose what I want to see when that's going on.
I also wish there was a way to filter out specific topics that people post about, such as sports and politics, and block categories of things like "attempts to promote multi-level marketing products", but unfortunately it's either block the person wholesale or let all their posts show. There's an option to "See less from" a friend, but I have no idea what that does. Once again, I have to hope that the algorithm does the right thing.
I did notice that there was a way to block just a person's stories, which saved me from blocking a family member. She posts incessantly about the makeup she's selling via an MLM, but fortunately she does it only through stories.
Why is this being downvoted? It's okay to like Facebook, folks.
Probably because Facebook is full of dark patterns and slowly tries to force this kind of content back onto you all the time so you're constantly fighting a riptide of ads, political garbage, and memes when all you want to see if updates about the lives of friends and family.
I know that I have trouble fighting that riptide. My family doesn't stand a chance. Too many friends and family members who are too old to fight that effect have been slowly polarized politically because they're helpless against Facebook's engagement metrics.
I know that I have trouble fighting that riptide. My family doesn't stand a chance. Too many friends and family members who are too old to fight that effect have been slowly polarized politically because they're helpless against Facebook's engagement metrics.
I mean you're just describing social media. Facebook the company makes plenty of user-hostile decisions but "the majority of content that people on Facebook share are memes and political garbage" isn't really something Facebook did except by being a platform where people who post that stuff can find an audience.
I mean I guess Facebook could mod memes and political content out of existence but the backlash against such an action would probably be worse.
I mean I guess Facebook could mod memes and political content out of existence but the backlash against such an action would probably be worse.
Social media doesn’t have to be awful. The current platforms are awful because they work for advertisers, not for users.
When there are people using your data to exploit the less intelligent more easily terrified portion of your countries citizens using targeted groups run by nation states that can only be described as adversarial to your country, it's a bit beyond "this is just what social media is". Facebook knows exactly what is being done using their platform and their CEO has given it tacit approval. There is a reason why I and a not insignificant portion of engineers wont consider working there.
Do you remember the early days of Facebook, 2007-2010 or so? There was a time when Facebook was just direct posts written by friends, photos they posted, and ... no links, no articles, no newsfeed algorithm, nothing else. Hell, at one point there wasn't even a newsfeed, you actually had to visit everyone's page (though iirc you could subscribe to a notification when certain friends posted?).
I'd pay $5/month for that 2009 Facebook back. And honestly I'd pay $20/month to get that for my parents and a couple of other family members who've experienced serious brainrot as a result of years of feed addiction. They wouldn't know where to find garbage 24/h news articles without FB.
I'd pay $5/month for that 2009 Facebook back. And honestly I'd pay $20/month to get that for my parents and a couple of other family members who've experienced serious brainrot as a result of years of feed addiction. They wouldn't know where to find garbage 24/h news articles without FB.
Because this post is like someone coming to an AA meeting claiming it's okay to go into a bar because he loves eating peanuts, drinking carbonated water while reading a book in a corner booth.
There's always someone in these threads who is like "hey, I have a healthy use of facebook, why don't you ?". This conversation has been done to death.
There's always someone in these threads who is like "hey, I have a healthy use of facebook, why don't you ?". This conversation has been done to death.
Many people feel Facebook is, collectively, a strongly net negative on society as a whole.
If it were simply a place to keep in touch with family and friends, and to find local business, etc, I think it’d be a fantastic resource and a net positive.
Unfortunately it has instead contributed to the devolution of a common understanding of truth, a common set of values, in favor of the outrage machine, mostly pushed by Facebook’s algorithms.
So not only is it destructive, Facebook has actively encouraged that destruction.
So, many people feel it’s not actually okay to like Facebook, any more than it’s ok to like the proliferation of drug dealers on street corners.
If it were simply a place to keep in touch with family and friends, and to find local business, etc, I think it’d be a fantastic resource and a net positive.
Unfortunately it has instead contributed to the devolution of a common understanding of truth, a common set of values, in favor of the outrage machine, mostly pushed by Facebook’s algorithms.
So not only is it destructive, Facebook has actively encouraged that destruction.
So, many people feel it’s not actually okay to like Facebook, any more than it’s ok to like the proliferation of drug dealers on street corners.
ELI5 how do you know it’s being downvoted?
Posts turn grey if downvoted enough. It seems to have rebounded now, though.
I share your conclusion. The feed is so horrendous these days, the only choice is to be part of it, or not. Having left the app over a year ago, I don't feel I'm missing anything. Anyone who wants to be part of my life can text, call, or e-mail (you likely can speculate who these people are before leaving FB, and you'll be right in retrospect). It's nice to not know, and save catching up for IRL. I am told I'm a "bad texter", but truthfully I 110% prefer when people tell me their stories in person, because texting misses out on the non-verbal aspects.
I deleted it too!
I still talk to the same people I was talking to before and eliminated a bunch of B.S.
Literally zero loss to my life.
I still talk to the same people I was talking to before and eliminated a bunch of B.S.
Literally zero loss to my life.
Their systems either work like that by intention or as a side effect. Perhaps they get more engagement by showing me content I don’t like.
I grew frustrated enough to entirely stop using Facebook around 2016. I would unfollow, block, hide posts and indicate lack of interest in anything political, and then the next items on the next refresh would be the same sort of political topics from people I didn’t even know were on my friends list. Meanwhile, the content I actually wanted to see such as conversation and events in the life of my friends hardly ever came up.
I assume that Facebook’s system is sophisticated enough to conclude that if I have hidden, removed friends, and blocked people repeatedly as actions related to certain political posts that I don’t wish to see more of the same.
I grew frustrated enough to entirely stop using Facebook around 2016. I would unfollow, block, hide posts and indicate lack of interest in anything political, and then the next items on the next refresh would be the same sort of political topics from people I didn’t even know were on my friends list. Meanwhile, the content I actually wanted to see such as conversation and events in the life of my friends hardly ever came up.
I assume that Facebook’s system is sophisticated enough to conclude that if I have hidden, removed friends, and blocked people repeatedly as actions related to certain political posts that I don’t wish to see more of the same.
Outrage is the tool that FB, Twitter, Fox News and CNN use to sell more ads. They won't stop because it is insanely successful. This is why we need taxing of digital advertising. This the root of all this evil. We need to make these behaviors a lot less profitable.
I'm another data point of overusing Facebook then deleting it entirely, after downloading all my stuff for archival purposes. I quit Twitter as well. Really, the only social networks I use today are a couple of old chatboards I've been on for years, LinkedIn rarely, and HN.
One realizes after a while that most of these platforms, while seemingly benevolent and innocuous, actually thrive on turmoil and strife.
You are not the customer; you are the product. Turn these things off and starve the beast. There's a place for social media and online discussion, but it has to be used judiciously. Don't let it take over your life.
One realizes after a while that most of these platforms, while seemingly benevolent and innocuous, actually thrive on turmoil and strife.
You are not the customer; you are the product. Turn these things off and starve the beast. There's a place for social media and online discussion, but it has to be used judiciously. Don't let it take over your life.
> Isn't it known that Facebook is aware the more enraged you are, the more engaged you are.
It is. With how much Facebook makes and spends on "consultants" and lobbyists, do you think the company cares?
It is. With how much Facebook makes and spends on "consultants" and lobbyists, do you think the company cares?
Got rid of all social media after COVID and political chaos of the last year. Just too much now and a waste of time.
[deleted]
How did you find amazing people to date?
I had a similar experience to 41209 on quitting online dating and drastically reducing social media, and developing better relationships in my life.
I spent more time on private Discord/Slack channels of hobby groups, clubs, and a non-profit as a volunteer. I felt better spending time and energy with people I've grown to care about, versus worrying about the attention of strangers via online dating optimization (nice photos that tell a story, worrying about the wording of the biography, and being overly clever with the chat messages) or, frankly, semi-strangers with loose connections on social media.
Dating a co-volunteer is almost like dating a coworker, but without the potential harm to your career. Just like a workplace, you tend to share similar interests and similar/complementary skillsets. It's also natural to approach another person, and ask to hang out or work on something independently of the organization. These relationships also seem more stable than people I'd meet through online connections.
These people are amazing to me, though it's more precise to say that I enjoy interactions with these people more than people I meet through online dating. I'm less likely to run into people who play games, e.g. who optimize response times and lengths to messages. It feels human, versus my experiences with online dating.
The main caveat is to avoid dating fellow volunteers/contributors when either of you are in a position of power (relatively less impact as no pay is at stake, but poor communication can still cause a negative organizational environment). I also avoid getting to know anyone with the intention to date them when I first meet them; though I don't hesitate to show interest in them as a person, and have created valued friends along the way. I moved to make it romantic, if I think we can work out long term (similar age, medium-term plans, and compatible personalities).
I spent more time on private Discord/Slack channels of hobby groups, clubs, and a non-profit as a volunteer. I felt better spending time and energy with people I've grown to care about, versus worrying about the attention of strangers via online dating optimization (nice photos that tell a story, worrying about the wording of the biography, and being overly clever with the chat messages) or, frankly, semi-strangers with loose connections on social media.
Dating a co-volunteer is almost like dating a coworker, but without the potential harm to your career. Just like a workplace, you tend to share similar interests and similar/complementary skillsets. It's also natural to approach another person, and ask to hang out or work on something independently of the organization. These relationships also seem more stable than people I'd meet through online connections.
These people are amazing to me, though it's more precise to say that I enjoy interactions with these people more than people I meet through online dating. I'm less likely to run into people who play games, e.g. who optimize response times and lengths to messages. It feels human, versus my experiences with online dating.
The main caveat is to avoid dating fellow volunteers/contributors when either of you are in a position of power (relatively less impact as no pay is at stake, but poor communication can still cause a negative organizational environment). I also avoid getting to know anyone with the intention to date them when I first meet them; though I don't hesitate to show interest in them as a person, and have created valued friends along the way. I moved to make it romantic, if I think we can work out long term (similar age, medium-term plans, and compatible personalities).
This is the inevitable result of Capitalism.
Journalism adapted to being disrupted by the Internet, by serving one sided audience with one sided outrage articles. The market selects for those. If FOX news admitted liberals weren’t that bad, they would lose much of their audience.
And social network algorithms select for “engagement” which once again prioritizes ones sided outrage clickbait.
Journalism adapted to being disrupted by the Internet, by serving one sided audience with one sided outrage articles. The market selects for those. If FOX news admitted liberals weren’t that bad, they would lose much of their audience.
And social network algorithms select for “engagement” which once again prioritizes ones sided outrage clickbait.
It's a result of capitalism, but only because capitalism is a "greedy optimization algorithm" that opportunistically hones in on whatever works consequences (and sometimes ethics) be damned.
The root cause is that humans have a powerful negativity bias. I once heard someone who'd been an editor at a major paper say that negative articles get as many as thousands of times more clicks than positive articles. It would be very hard for any media business not to prioritize negativity and conflict. They would not survive.
I've seen it myself. I once penned a very combative blog post about the usability flaws in IPv6. It got hundreds of times more hits than anything else I have ever written combined. The big difference seemed to be the negative, combative, snarky tone. If you write like a snarky narcissistic asshole, you get 10-100X the attention. (I ended up taking it down because I didn't like the tone after thinking about it for a while.)
This bias likely has an evolutionary root. "If you mistake a bush for a lion, you're fine. If you mistake a lion for a bush, you're dead." We came of age in an environment of scarcity, predation, and conflict, and are hard-wired to pay close attention to anything that even remotely smells like a threat or induces negative emotions.
The root cause is that humans have a powerful negativity bias. I once heard someone who'd been an editor at a major paper say that negative articles get as many as thousands of times more clicks than positive articles. It would be very hard for any media business not to prioritize negativity and conflict. They would not survive.
I've seen it myself. I once penned a very combative blog post about the usability flaws in IPv6. It got hundreds of times more hits than anything else I have ever written combined. The big difference seemed to be the negative, combative, snarky tone. If you write like a snarky narcissistic asshole, you get 10-100X the attention. (I ended up taking it down because I didn't like the tone after thinking about it for a while.)
This bias likely has an evolutionary root. "If you mistake a bush for a lion, you're fine. If you mistake a lion for a bush, you're dead." We came of age in an environment of scarcity, predation, and conflict, and are hard-wired to pay close attention to anything that even remotely smells like a threat or induces negative emotions.
I think the biggest reason isn’t even the evolutionary root, but people’s tendency to chime in when they disagree, whereas they MAY hit the like button if they agree.
I would even say the number of comments shows how controversial something is while the amount of likes shows how uncontroversial it is.
Comments take more effort than hitting a like. You want to add your 2c and before you know it, others want to address what you said, too. And you get endless repetitions of the same arguments buried deep in chats and threads.
Finally, there is nothing more addictive and compelling than the notification “Someone just replied to your comment”
I would even say the number of comments shows how controversial something is while the amount of likes shows how uncontroversial it is.
Comments take more effort than hitting a like. You want to add your 2c and before you know it, others want to address what you said, too. And you get endless repetitions of the same arguments buried deep in chats and threads.
Finally, there is nothing more addictive and compelling than the notification “Someone just replied to your comment”
> people’s tendency to chime in when they disagree
Take away that and the tendency of people to want to show off how "verysmart" they are and you'd have to shut down HN.
Take away that and the tendency of people to want to show off how "verysmart" they are and you'd have to shut down HN.
This is not necessarily the result of capitalism.
This is the result of people wanting something for free. Which normally is like the opposite of capitalism.
This is the result of people wanting something for free. Which normally is like the opposite of capitalism.
No. That’s factually wrong.
Under capitalism, news agencies are privately owned, and have to pay employees. They compete for advertising and subscription revenue.
Thus, they are subject to market discipline and the market selects for clickbat outrage articles that are widely shared. When it comes to subscriptions, the for-profit news organizations cannot afford to tell both sides of the story. If FOX News hosts regularly admitted that progressives are decent people and single payer systems may have some good sides , they’d lose their audience. If Daily Kos said that conservatives have a point in this or the other thing, their readers would be frustrated/triggered and move elsewhere.
Facebook selects for more engagement and sends notifications because if they didn’t, then another network would become #1.
The point is... capitalism drives us into echo chambers and distracts/interrupts us at dinner. It is a tragedy of the commons where the commins is human attention and decency.
On the other hand, science, wikipedia and open source software do not have a profit motive. There is competition, yes — to be the first to contribute to the snowball of free information. This is actually collaboration. Our news can be done this way.
Look at https://rational.app to see what I’m talking about.
Under capitalism, news agencies are privately owned, and have to pay employees. They compete for advertising and subscription revenue.
Thus, they are subject to market discipline and the market selects for clickbat outrage articles that are widely shared. When it comes to subscriptions, the for-profit news organizations cannot afford to tell both sides of the story. If FOX News hosts regularly admitted that progressives are decent people and single payer systems may have some good sides , they’d lose their audience. If Daily Kos said that conservatives have a point in this or the other thing, their readers would be frustrated/triggered and move elsewhere.
Facebook selects for more engagement and sends notifications because if they didn’t, then another network would become #1.
The point is... capitalism drives us into echo chambers and distracts/interrupts us at dinner. It is a tragedy of the commons where the commins is human attention and decency.
On the other hand, science, wikipedia and open source software do not have a profit motive. There is competition, yes — to be the first to contribute to the snowball of free information. This is actually collaboration. Our news can be done this way.
Look at https://rational.app to see what I’m talking about.
Last time I checked (over a year ago now) the pipeline that checked for political ads in Washington state, which Facebook is not allowed to run, remained broken. A lot of stuff is like this.
It's probably not a question of Facebook policy directly, but of no one internally seeing any juicy line item on their performance review to justify working on it.
If you want motion from Facebook, you have to make it hurt so that someone can play hero for their performance review. Germany imposed large fines for Nazi related content showing up during elections a few years ago, and the fines were large and per impression. That got dealt with.
It's probably not a question of Facebook policy directly, but of no one internally seeing any juicy line item on their performance review to justify working on it.
If you want motion from Facebook, you have to make it hurt so that someone can play hero for their performance review. Germany imposed large fines for Nazi related content showing up during elections a few years ago, and the fines were large and per impression. That got dealt with.
> no one internally seeing any juicy line item on their performance review
Pretty much. There are countless pipelines producing ad placements and feed recommendations, or flagging some kind of content. Each one might have produced a good result at one time, getting someone a good review, but that time is long gone and probably so is the person. Nobody wants to mess with it lest they trigger a loss of engagement/revenue. Safer to just keep adding more.
There are thousands of people at Facebook, both data scientists and moderators, sincerely trying to fight the good fight. I respect their efforts, but there's no way they can win against a multi-billion-dollar physical manifestation of technical and organizational hubris.
Pretty much. There are countless pipelines producing ad placements and feed recommendations, or flagging some kind of content. Each one might have produced a good result at one time, getting someone a good review, but that time is long gone and probably so is the person. Nobody wants to mess with it lest they trigger a loss of engagement/revenue. Safer to just keep adding more.
There are thousands of people at Facebook, both data scientists and moderators, sincerely trying to fight the good fight. I respect their efforts, but there's no way they can win against a multi-billion-dollar physical manifestation of technical and organizational hubris.
Themarkup.org sure has a lot of anti fb post on HN. I agree with them, but I sense an agenda.
I think there's a much larger need for anti-facebook posts than pro-facebook posts by the media. You don't need to be 50% positive about any company to be fair and unbiased, some companies are just kind of evil.
Yup: they don't like Facebook. (There's a reason for that… Facebook isn't exactly likeable.)
I think there is a lot of ambiguity when trying to identify a political group.
Maybe if we have another debate about Facebook, we'll finally solve this problem! Everyone, tell us your feelings about Facebook!
Facebook does thing that keeps people using Facebook.
Why would anyone expect Facebook to promote the “healthy option”? They’re brain junk food.
Why would anyone expect Facebook to promote the “healthy option”? They’re brain junk food.
That's a good way of putting it.
I just can’t believe that decent people are still working for this company and not resigning in protest. Is there any doubt that their reckless drive towards anything that increases user engagement has directly resulted in the polarized societies we see everywhere today?
>Is there any doubt that their reckless drive towards anything that increases user engagement has directly resulted in the polarized societies we see everywhere today?
Yes. I doubt it. I think traditional media deserves a lot (most?) of the blame. It is easy for us to blame the internet because we are on the internet. As a generation we've practically forgotten that TV and radio exists and as a result massively undervalue its influence. In our head we all know the stereotype of the fox news addicted older person, yet for some reason we assign more blame to whatever the FB algorithm shows on accident than to the things that network shows on purpose.
Yes. I doubt it. I think traditional media deserves a lot (most?) of the blame. It is easy for us to blame the internet because we are on the internet. As a generation we've practically forgotten that TV and radio exists and as a result massively undervalue its influence. In our head we all know the stereotype of the fox news addicted older person, yet for some reason we assign more blame to whatever the FB algorithm shows on accident than to the things that network shows on purpose.
I'd be curious to see the current numbers on the "older person" who uses Facebook vs. watches Fox News. My MIL is definitely not a Fox Newser but is on Facebook hours a day.
What if you think that any person should be able to communicate with any other person freely about any subject, and any person should be able to form a group and promote that group to other like minded people? What if you also think that this is completely independent of what upper middle class busybodies think about what is being said?
In other words, consider the fact that people aren't resigning in protest as a hint that perhaps there's another viewpoint that you haven't explored and this "news" source could just not be covering it.
After all we want people to have good media literacy even when you like the source.
After all we want people to have good media literacy even when you like the source.
It is my belief that their hiring process optimizes for people who get work done and don’t ask questions. That sort of person will never resign in protest —- they don’t see anything wrong and are fundamentally incapable of seeing it.
> people who get work done and don’t ask questions
People who rely on staying in the good graces of their employer to maintain their visa sponsorship status, for instance.
People who rely on staying in the good graces of their employer to maintain their visa sponsorship status, for instance.
That's been my experience with people I've met from Facebook. The conversations are never all that memorable to put it lightly.
Ah, yeah, politicians, academics and traditional media have nothing to do with the polarized society. It’s all the Facebook’s fault!
I dislike fb as much as anyone, but I am not sold on the current political polarization situation being their fault.
They’re a nice scapegoat, but I haven’t seen enough to suggest that they are anywhere near the root cause.
They’re a nice scapegoat, but I haven’t seen enough to suggest that they are anywhere near the root cause.
I mean it makes sense. The main stream media found they their viewership increased with explosive, inflammatory, polarizing, world-ending stories, so news reports are nothing but that. Twitter/Facebook learned that too, so they promote outrage culture so that people use their product. I remember back in the late 2000s, Twitter had a hard time keeping people engaged and getting new users. Who cares about what someone ate for lunch or what new latte they ordered? Then the Obama election happened and the Kony2012 meme. They got their dopamine hit and have kept it going.
Not everything that is plausible is true.
Do you have an alternative explanation?
Yes, several. They all seem plausible as well, which doesn't tell me anything about any of them being true or not.
1. The US mass media's race to the bottom as previous/traditional revenue models and funding mechanisms fall away
2. Rising economic hardship and income inequality causing greater widespread dissatisfaction with the status quo
3. App-based "free" social media in general where engagement time is prioritized above all else (Facebook didn't invent this)
4. The growing influence of big tech and financialization (SV and Wall Street) and the waning influence of the american worker
5. Demagogues
6. The death throes of the US political parties as they thrash about in a desperate push to try to stay relevant, resorting to simple and effective scapegoating and tribalism
I'm sure you can probably toss out a few more plausible ones, too.
1. The US mass media's race to the bottom as previous/traditional revenue models and funding mechanisms fall away
2. Rising economic hardship and income inequality causing greater widespread dissatisfaction with the status quo
3. App-based "free" social media in general where engagement time is prioritized above all else (Facebook didn't invent this)
4. The growing influence of big tech and financialization (SV and Wall Street) and the waning influence of the american worker
5. Demagogues
6. The death throes of the US political parties as they thrash about in a desperate push to try to stay relevant, resorting to simple and effective scapegoating and tribalism
I'm sure you can probably toss out a few more plausible ones, too.
> not resigning in protest
What an absolutely incredibly privileged life you must live.
What an absolutely incredibly privileged life you must live.
What makes you think that? I would resign despite the need for the income if I felt like my companies ethics contradicted mine in alarming ways.
That's still a lot easier for some to say than for others. Until you've actually done it, it's just so much hot air. Quitting a job when you already have wealth saved from other job (or from inheritance etc.) is not the same as quitting a job when you have no savings at all. Quitting a job when you have skills and credentials that make it easy to find another is not the same as quitting a job when you have none of those things. Quitting a job when you're a citizen is not the same as quitting a job when you're dependent on your employer to retain your residency status. These are all forms of privilege. Privilege doesn't mean you're evil or weak; it just means that you might not be able to generalize your own feelings or decision making to others who lack that same privilege.
FWIW, I have quit a job for moral reasons, when I was poor and unskilled and not at all sure whether it would end up with me in the street. (Cold-calling people to sell worthless coupons.) I'll bet I could count on one hand the number of HNers more qualified to make a claim about what they would or would not do in the face of such moral qualms. And I still wouldn't generalize my experience to those who had a criminal record, less evidence of future employability, or even a different skin color.
FWIW, I have quit a job for moral reasons, when I was poor and unskilled and not at all sure whether it would end up with me in the street. (Cold-calling people to sell worthless coupons.) I'll bet I could count on one hand the number of HNers more qualified to make a claim about what they would or would not do in the face of such moral qualms. And I still wouldn't generalize my experience to those who had a criminal record, less evidence of future employability, or even a different skin color.
People were talking about this nonsense polarization during Nixon’s term. Read Nixonland to get an idea.
Listen, guys, all of you have an external locus of control. Facebook is doing things to you that you are unable to control. You have a paternalistic view of people. Grandpa is too dumb to evaluate on his own. Facebook made him a Nazi.
Gonna be honest with you. It’s the people. Facebook didn’t exist when Nixon was elected. No one made grandpa a Nazi but grandpa and no one is doing things to you but you.
Listen, guys, all of you have an external locus of control. Facebook is doing things to you that you are unable to control. You have a paternalistic view of people. Grandpa is too dumb to evaluate on his own. Facebook made him a Nazi.
Gonna be honest with you. It’s the people. Facebook didn’t exist when Nixon was elected. No one made grandpa a Nazi but grandpa and no one is doing things to you but you.
It's not only they work for Facebook, but are also pretty proud of it. After all, Facebook is the starting F of FAANG, which is a Holly Grail of every aspiring software developer, a pinnacle of human achievement.
It's not Facebook that needs to be fixed, it's humanity.
It's not Facebook that needs to be fixed, it's humanity.
"a Holly Grail of every aspiring software developer" You have to be kidding me.
Speaking as a Software Developer, there's no inducement on Earth you could offer me to work for the shitfactory that is Facebook. The company is evil through and through, and that starts at the top.
Speaking as a Software Developer, there's no inducement on Earth you could offer me to work for the shitfactory that is Facebook. The company is evil through and through, and that starts at the top.
Then Facebook needs to be dropped off FAANG. It’s a cultural problem on developers that the term is still used.
He was referring to FAANG as the Holy Grail of every software engineer, but you're right. It's a Holy Grail of shitfactories.
FAANG starts with F because it makes a word, not because Facebook is particularly appealing in any respect. What else are you going to call it? NAGAF? GAANF? ANGFA?
And I realize that Facebook is a much larger entity than Twitter, but I think that Twitter has a larger and more destructive cultural influence.
I agree. From my experience, there are fewer fake and anonymous accounts on FB than on Twitter. Also a friend of mine had their home address, phone number and real names leaked to social media without his consent. He was able to take it down from FB properties but Twitter couldn't care less.
My personal favourite is FAAAM: Facebook, Amazon, Alphabet, Apple, Microsoft. Obviously the AAA league can be whatever order you want.
Microsoft is more deserving of a slot than Netflix, and Google is just a subsidiary of a company called Alphabet now, however weird and arbitrary that division is in practice.
Microsoft is more deserving of a slot than Netflix, and Google is just a subsidiary of a company called Alphabet now, however weird and arbitrary that division is in practice.
Similarly, I've always claimed that Netflix is there largely to avoid an offensive acronym.
I think F-MAGA or MAGA-F (replacing Netflix with Microsoft) would be pretty appropriate. They have, after all, done much to enable the person associated with that other acronym.
I closed my Facebook account years ago, but is not Facebook alone, Youtube keeps recommending me far right extremist channels, I'm a POC immigrant, is that just bad luck? I'm the only one?. Is f*cking cruel at this point.
From my experience there's very little "intelligence" in these recommendation algorithms.
If you do nothing, they recommend what is generally popular.
If you watch or engage with content, you see recommendations for similar content to what you have watched recently.
If you "like" or "subscribe" to channels, you see more of that type of stuff.
If you do nothing, they recommend what is generally popular.
If you watch or engage with content, you see recommendations for similar content to what you have watched recently.
If you "like" or "subscribe" to channels, you see more of that type of stuff.
Is this actual malice / bad faith, or is this, as i suspect, that their codebase, and its actions, are now so big and opaque that they cannot reason about their code - and are playing whack-a-mole ?
Hand wringing about "malice" isn't typically productive. No airline manufacturer wants to build a plane that crashes, but when one falls out of the sky and hundreds of people die, they still get taken to court and need to account for their decisions.
What's the difference between malice and negligence for profit? In the end, the company has deliberately chosen a path which makes them money while creating externalities.
When I read about Facebook's issues, I sometimes have the urge so start giving armchair advice about how they should fix their problem this or that way.
But having a clue about their scale, their business model, and the logistical and technical complexity of it... frankly there's no fixing this cesspool.
Use it or leave it.
My guess is that Facebook will be eventually replaced by a company with a completely different business model. I hope that business model focuses on (low) monthly fee, no ads, no tracking, just provide the service people need to connect with each other. Like a utility. Like your phone, or postal service.
But also it's a bit of a wishful thinking.
But having a clue about their scale, their business model, and the logistical and technical complexity of it... frankly there's no fixing this cesspool.
Use it or leave it.
My guess is that Facebook will be eventually replaced by a company with a completely different business model. I hope that business model focuses on (low) monthly fee, no ads, no tracking, just provide the service people need to connect with each other. Like a utility. Like your phone, or postal service.
But also it's a bit of a wishful thinking.
No-ad services are no longer possible. The very fact that you are willing to pay for a service signals advertisers that you have purchasing power. The more you pay to keep ads out, the more advertisers will pay to put them back in. This will only get worse until some sort of socioeconomic paradigm shift takes place.
No longer possible? There's tons and tons of websites and apps that have paid subscriptions, most of which don't have ads after subscribing.
If I'm willing to pay $50/mo to remove ads from Facebook, that just says what the ads are worth to me, not to the advertiser. Advertisers won't pay any price to show me an ad for Pepsi.
If I'm willing to pay $50/mo to remove ads from Facebook, that just says what the ads are worth to me, not to the advertiser. Advertisers won't pay any price to show me an ad for Pepsi.
I hope to god you're right. But, a counterpoint from an adjacent post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27620036
Ads are not that profitable per user. So as companies like Apple show, no-ad services are working great, and have great ROI.
apple has rather annoying ads in their app store though, so maybe not as successful as you think.
Unfortunately leaving it individually doesn’t help much: the societal damage is huge.
Wasn't app.net an attempt to be a paid Twitter?
I don't disagree with this being where things needs to go, but I feel like you either need some critical mass of initial users (what college students were for Facebook), or you need exclusive content (Obama and then Trump really made Twitter the place-to-be for political discourse), or if it really is a "utility", you need it to be a monopoly (like the phone system).
So the real question to me is, which of these will it be? Part of me wonders if the next social network might be something that arises in the halo of a place where people already spend money online to have social interactions— Twitch being an obvious example, but even the non-social streaming services are candidates for this.
Everyone has and pays for Netflix. What if part of Netflix was access to a no frills, bullshit-free social network? That would be a pretty wild pivot, but they have the resources and technical expertise, and they sure have pivoted before.
I don't disagree with this being where things needs to go, but I feel like you either need some critical mass of initial users (what college students were for Facebook), or you need exclusive content (Obama and then Trump really made Twitter the place-to-be for political discourse), or if it really is a "utility", you need it to be a monopoly (like the phone system).
So the real question to me is, which of these will it be? Part of me wonders if the next social network might be something that arises in the halo of a place where people already spend money online to have social interactions— Twitch being an obvious example, but even the non-social streaming services are candidates for this.
Everyone has and pays for Netflix. What if part of Netflix was access to a no frills, bullshit-free social network? That would be a pretty wild pivot, but they have the resources and technical expertise, and they sure have pivoted before.
Twitter itself is trying to move to a paid model with Twitter Blue. I'm looking forward to their experiment.
Unfortunately there's absolutely nothing left in Twitter that makes it Twitter anymore. People are writing 20-30 tweet long threads, which are basically a long blog article, but presented in an infuriating format.
Unfortunately there's absolutely nothing left in Twitter that makes it Twitter anymore. People are writing 20-30 tweet long threads, which are basically a long blog article, but presented in an infuriating format.
This reminds me of a recurring conversation I've had with relatives, in which I try to explain to them that Facebook isn't a person. It's not a media company with an editorial staff. It's not a company like anything we have seen before. It has billions of users. Trillions of posts, photos, videos and sundry other content. Thousands, possibly millions, of advertisers.
If a person breaks a promise to you, he's a lying liar who lies. If Facebook recommends a political group to "at least 3 people," that's not a broken promise. That's an amazingly effective tweak to the recommendation algorithm. The same goes for all sort of claims people make about Facebook:
All that's not to say that Facebook is awesome and the criticism is unwarranted. I personally don't use Facebook anymore for all the usual reasons. We should absolutely be talking about the role of social media in society, and how it's really warped public discourse, polarized the polity etc. But "it's easy, if you would just do this one thing, everything would be peachy" is absolutely the wrong conclusion and people seem to insist on reaching it every damn time Facebook comes up.
If a person breaks a promise to you, he's a lying liar who lies. If Facebook recommends a political group to "at least 3 people," that's not a broken promise. That's an amazingly effective tweak to the recommendation algorithm. The same goes for all sort of claims people make about Facebook:
- You were paid in Rubles! (It's not like there was a salesman that should have been suspicious. Facebook gets paid in Rubles *all the time* because they have millions of Russian users and many, many Russian ad customers. No human looked at the ad before it went up.)
- You're allowing people to post hateful things! (Again no human reads all the posts. There are people that review a tiny percentage that have been flagged for one reason or another, but they'd have to employ a sizable percentage of the world's population to review everything.)
- You're censoring conservatives! (Same thing, nobody is checking the political affiliation of posters before allowing posts to go up.)
All that's not to say that Facebook is awesome and the criticism is unwarranted. I personally don't use Facebook anymore for all the usual reasons. We should absolutely be talking about the role of social media in society, and how it's really warped public discourse, polarized the polity etc. But "it's easy, if you would just do this one thing, everything would be peachy" is absolutely the wrong conclusion and people seem to insist on reaching it every damn time Facebook comes up.
What you're saying is true to a large extent. But numerically the most interacted posts on the platform are not just right-wing, but far, far right wing. See https://twitter.com/FacebooksTop10 which posts them every day. There's the occasional cute cat, NASA photo, or centrist/left-wing news source, sure. But it's 80-90% far right commentators. Whether this is due to the asymmetrical polarization of right vs. left or something that Facebook is doing is hard to say. But the fact is that the most active posts are almost all far right political commentary.
That would only measure public content. A large portion of US users have stopped engaging with public content on FB. A lot of people want to use FB to communicate with loved ones and news is just shoehorned in awkwardly. They don't engage with public content because either because it got them put in timeout or because they realized it was like shouting at a brick wall
It's not surprising that the ones that still engage with public content are people you could imagine enjoying shouting at walls.
It's not surprising that the ones that still engage with public content are people you could imagine enjoying shouting at walls.
Out of curiosity, I checked out the last twenty entries from this list.
Clearly, the reigning heavyweight champion of Facebook is Ben Shapiro. It is simply dishonest to call Ben Shapiro "far right". He's a Republican. He doesn't promote military dictatorship, or "plandemics", or "the steal"; he's an Orthodox Jew who wants Republicans to be in charge. That's it.
That's just bog-standard right wing. I happen to think he's a twerp; so what?
So your source doesn't support your claim.
Clearly, the reigning heavyweight champion of Facebook is Ben Shapiro. It is simply dishonest to call Ben Shapiro "far right". He's a Republican. He doesn't promote military dictatorship, or "plandemics", or "the steal"; he's an Orthodox Jew who wants Republicans to be in charge. That's it.
That's just bog-standard right wing. I happen to think he's a twerp; so what?
So your source doesn't support your claim.
Facebook have repeatedly shown that their official "word" is pretty well as good as doodoo, so I'm surprised anyone would think they would hold themselves to a "promise" over their bottom-line.
It's likely that, seeking to lessen their exposure to political attention of a sort they don't like, of the kind critical to their business/way of making money, Facebook simply over-promises with the expectation that the next thing that catches attention will divert attention away from them and the idea of them actually following though on those promises.
It's likely that, seeking to lessen their exposure to political attention of a sort they don't like, of the kind critical to their business/way of making money, Facebook simply over-promises with the expectation that the next thing that catches attention will divert attention away from them and the idea of them actually following though on those promises.
Shocking
Curated social media that is funded by manipulating people (ads) is manipulating people.
Curated social media that is funded by manipulating people (ads) is manipulating people.
Of course, why would they stop. Their cash cow in the US is right wing politics and political groups.
This twitter accounts posts the top 10 FB links everyday, and everyday the list is usually 9/10 or 10/10 right wing politics
https://twitter.com/FacebooksTop10
This twitter accounts posts the top 10 FB links everyday, and everyday the list is usually 9/10 or 10/10 right wing politics
https://twitter.com/FacebooksTop10
TIL that many people seem to follow Ben Shapiro. That makes me sad, most he does is talk fast and put people down.
I wished I didn't know who he was ...
The right probably feels the same about AoC. And the left tucker Carlson. The list goes on.
But they weren't on the lists that I saw.
I'd say that that's more a reflection of the overall political alignment of that community you've seen rather than anything else.
Just as how reddit swings left, and thus comes with massive aoc/whatever figure the right likes to hate support, that community on Facebook swung right and thus has a higher rate of "left hates this guy" Support.
AoC was selected as the example due to her "dunking on the right" reddit popularity thats analogous to the "destroyed with facts and logic" Shapiro crowd.
Just as how reddit swings left, and thus comes with massive aoc/whatever figure the right likes to hate support, that community on Facebook swung right and thus has a higher rate of "left hates this guy" Support.
AoC was selected as the example due to her "dunking on the right" reddit popularity thats analogous to the "destroyed with facts and logic" Shapiro crowd.
> that community on Facebook
That twitter account captures "the sources of the 10 top-performing link posts by U.S. Facebook pages every day, ranked by total interactions.", it's not just some part of Facebook. This is Facebook.
That twitter account captures "the sources of the 10 top-performing link posts by U.S. Facebook pages every day, ranked by total interactions.", it's not just some part of Facebook. This is Facebook.
Yeah, it is. I did check that twitter feed afterward. I didn't edit as it doesn't really affect the point I was making. People just love dunking on their enemies.
It might be one type of extremism today, but it will be a different kind in the future.
Absolutism about lack of censorship is not the answer to this problem anymore than a completely regulation-free economy would fix any problems there.
Absolutism about lack of censorship is not the answer to this problem anymore than a completely regulation-free economy would fix any problems there.
I hope to see the fall of facebook in my lifetime.
YouTube loves to recommend me far-right channels despite rarely if ever watching politics on YouTube. Interesting enough I've never gotten left wing channels as recommendations.
How would you know if that is just your perspective?
If you are really far left, YouTube would have nothing to offer you that you don’t already have, but everything else would appear far right.
Just thinking out loud…
If you are really far left, YouTube would have nothing to offer you that you don’t already have, but everything else would appear far right.
Just thinking out loud…
If I'm not watching politics on YouTube how would YouTube have nothing available on the far left to offer me?
Do you know how cookies and tracking works? Go to Reddit, click an imgur link, go to YouTube, they almost certainly have data about you now.
(By the way, this is why Firefox containers are so awesome. Doesn’t remove all the issues, but really limited their ability to build profiles on you.)
(By the way, this is why Firefox containers are so awesome. Doesn’t remove all the issues, but really limited their ability to build profiles on you.)
Wouldn't that mean they would recommend me channels based on my browsing habits?
>Four days after the Jan. 6 insurrection
It's comedic how these far left wing publications continue to call it an "insurrection" when there were no weapons used and the only person killed was a woman that was assassinated by a trigger happy mall cop whose identity has still not been revealed.
It's comedic how these far left wing publications continue to call it an "insurrection" when there were no weapons used and the only person killed was a woman that was assassinated by a trigger happy mall cop whose identity has still not been revealed.
How soon we forget that "not my president" was inspired not by Biden, but by Trump. I guess it was all okay to organize political protest groups back in 2016, but somehow it's not okay anymore today.
Check your memory? It started with Obama.
facebook says, "right speech > free speech"
Society has benefitted a net zero from social media. Arguably a net negative.
Society has benefitted a net zero from software. Arguably a net negative.
The earth has benefitted a net zero from humans. Arguably a net negative.
> The earth has benefitted a net zero from humans. Arguably a net negative.
Stop anthropomorphizing inanimate objects, they hate that.
Stop anthropomorphizing inanimate objects, they hate that.
"Jackie Treehorn treats objects like women man!"
this made my day.
In the beginning, the universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.
That's not even arguable.
next evolution of social media will be to embed it to politics. BigTech being part of the Democrat movement just means they will be replaced.
I think what bothers me a lot more than recommended political groups is censoring them selectively
How is Facebook's word worth anything at this point? The only thing that will change them is outside government regulation, which is badly needed.
Facebook recommends only sailing groups to me... Maybe what Facebook recommends to you, is your fucking problem.
The way the algorithms and the current approach work, there is really no way to participate on a platform and not get slowly pulled into the extreme machine one way or the other. It's not just politics, the algorithms are geared towards driving you more and more into that world and maximize your attention. I wish there is a mellow mode where the platform just shows you everything. I like reddit for that reason, I can control what aspects I want to get into and block everything out. I don't think FB has an incentive to fix their stuff. They also have fully gone on to the "lets cover up things and spend on lobbyists and PR" mode, nothing is going to change.
> The group, formed in December, is private and relatively small (57 members) but is still active, with four posts in the last month. We attempted to reach the administrator by email but did not receive a response.
It’s not really honest to expect Facebook to correctly classify every single, tiny group created on the entire website.