Facebook Is a Doomsday Machine(theatlantic.com)
theatlantic.com
Facebook Is a Doomsday Machine
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2020/12/facebook-doomsday-machine/617384/
93 comments
I live in a rural area and I don't actually know anyone that uses twitter except me.
My wife's facebook on the other hand is a dumpster fire. Religion, racism, politics all day long with various ads for crappy little boutique stores selling the same cheap clothes at a giant markup.
People post crap about religion and politics that they would never bring up in real life.
My wife's facebook on the other hand is a dumpster fire. Religion, racism, politics all day long with various ads for crappy little boutique stores selling the same cheap clothes at a giant markup.
People post crap about religion and politics that they would never bring up in real life.
You're in a socioeconomically-stratified filter bubble on facebook.
My facebook was sufficiently diverse and my feed was exactly like twitter, even though none of my friend group were twitter users. I closed all of my social accounts.
Doomsday machine is _exactly_ how I would describe all social media.
My facebook was sufficiently diverse and my feed was exactly like twitter, even though none of my friend group were twitter users. I closed all of my social accounts.
Doomsday machine is _exactly_ how I would describe all social media.
Back when I had Facebook, it was just RSS for me. I wasn't a member of many groups, and I realized I mostly followed organizations and entities. Well, I also followed people, but they were all reluctant social media users. They didn't post, so I found no value in Facebook any longer. It was easy for me to leave.
I un-followed everyone on Twitter some-time ago and set up TweetDelete to delete all my tweets after 2 weeks. I started re-following select accounts on Twitter, and it's not that many. In fact, I frequently find no new content on Twitter, so I am free to ignore it for a while.
I also found that I unfollow any accounts from humans that post too often. Anyone who's sitting on Twitter all day... I don't want to follow. Not very often is it valuable. Even the reasonable constant-posters, they're just jacked into their twitter-sphere. I don't need that. It's a weird thing, to have a job and crank out 20-40 tweets/day.
I un-followed everyone on Twitter some-time ago and set up TweetDelete to delete all my tweets after 2 weeks. I started re-following select accounts on Twitter, and it's not that many. In fact, I frequently find no new content on Twitter, so I am free to ignore it for a while.
I also found that I unfollow any accounts from humans that post too often. Anyone who's sitting on Twitter all day... I don't want to follow. Not very often is it valuable. Even the reasonable constant-posters, they're just jacked into their twitter-sphere. I don't need that. It's a weird thing, to have a job and crank out 20-40 tweets/day.
I am? My Facebook feed contains people who make over $1M/yr, and people who live in their car. Some right wing people talking about how suspicious they think the election was, and left wing people talking about how bad those people are.
I’m not sure how that’s me living is a socioeconomically stratified filter bubble.
My twitter on the other hand, is mostly (all?) left wing Silicon Valley/tech types. It’s diverse in the way that I’d expect a hackathon to be “diverse”.
I’m not sure how that’s me living is a socioeconomically stratified filter bubble.
My twitter on the other hand, is mostly (all?) left wing Silicon Valley/tech types. It’s diverse in the way that I’d expect a hackathon to be “diverse”.
> contains people who make over $1M/yr, and people who live in their car.
If you live in the Bay Area, this can actually be the same group.
If you live in the Bay Area, this can actually be the same group.
I'm not shaming you. Congrats, you made it.
But you're basically talking about all Bay Area people, which is not a representative cross-section of America as a whole in any way shape or form.
I've lived all over this country and abroad, succeeded, failed, been homeless, succeeded again. My social circle is absurdly broad and my Facebook looked like people fighting each other all the time.
Facebook has even confirmed that it drives engagement.
But you're basically talking about all Bay Area people, which is not a representative cross-section of America as a whole in any way shape or form.
I've lived all over this country and abroad, succeeded, failed, been homeless, succeeded again. My social circle is absurdly broad and my Facebook looked like people fighting each other all the time.
Facebook has even confirmed that it drives engagement.
>But you're basically talking about all Bay Area people, which is not a representative cross-section of America as a whole in any way shape or form.
What? I live in Arizona, and I grew up in the midwest. I've only ever even been to the bay area like 4 times in my life. Most of my friends are in Arizona, and then some in North Dakota, northern MN, and Iowa.
What? I live in Arizona, and I grew up in the midwest. I've only ever even been to the bay area like 4 times in my life. Most of my friends are in Arizona, and then some in North Dakota, northern MN, and Iowa.
> Some right wing people talking about how suspicious they think the election was, and left wing people talking about how bad those people are.
And somehow this isn't spilling over into big toxic feuds?
And somehow this isn't spilling over into big toxic feuds?
No not that I've seen. On facebook, most of the people know each other in real life, so it seems like those sorts of feuds don't really happen there as much.
There is a groups of people I can think of who occupy dramatically different idealogical spaces, and they do argue with one another, but it's usually more in the form of giant walls of text back and forth.
The most "dramatic" thing happening in my facebook space right now is that a bunch of my friends worked on building a drive through Christmas light show (many of my friends are artists and fabricators), and then the person they built it for didn't pay them, so they're organizing protests.
Just going through my feed right now it's:
Somebody posting pictures about her adventure van build.
Somebody posting a "shop local" guide for Arizona.
A person posting a bunch of selfies of herself.
Somebody asking questions about a soft egg that one of their chickens laid (in a backyard chickens group)
Somebody posting that she just graduated with her masters degree
A post in a group called "let's really argue about film/tv" about christmas movies.
A solicitation for donations to a charity for the homeless (its' getting cold here in Phoenix right now. It was in the 30s last night)
Solicitations in a "buy nothing Tempe" group.
Ah, the first political post: the headline is: "even with three Trump appointed justices on the Bench, SCOTUS Declines to Roll Back Marriage equality"
Picture of a clock tower
A news article about NZ lifting covid restrictions
A motivational picture/meme about self care
Somebody talking about fasting
Somebody selling their tiedyes
Somebody graduating nursing school
More backyard chickens
I'm trying to find something inflammatory here but honestly my entire feed is basically just this forever and ever. People I know and am acquainted with in real life just posting about what they're doing. A few political posts here and there, and generally those don't get any comments.
There is a groups of people I can think of who occupy dramatically different idealogical spaces, and they do argue with one another, but it's usually more in the form of giant walls of text back and forth.
The most "dramatic" thing happening in my facebook space right now is that a bunch of my friends worked on building a drive through Christmas light show (many of my friends are artists and fabricators), and then the person they built it for didn't pay them, so they're organizing protests.
Just going through my feed right now it's:
Somebody posting pictures about her adventure van build.
Somebody posting a "shop local" guide for Arizona.
A person posting a bunch of selfies of herself.
Somebody asking questions about a soft egg that one of their chickens laid (in a backyard chickens group)
Somebody posting that she just graduated with her masters degree
A post in a group called "let's really argue about film/tv" about christmas movies.
A solicitation for donations to a charity for the homeless (its' getting cold here in Phoenix right now. It was in the 30s last night)
Solicitations in a "buy nothing Tempe" group.
Ah, the first political post: the headline is: "even with three Trump appointed justices on the Bench, SCOTUS Declines to Roll Back Marriage equality"
Picture of a clock tower
A news article about NZ lifting covid restrictions
A motivational picture/meme about self care
Somebody talking about fasting
Somebody selling their tiedyes
Somebody graduating nursing school
More backyard chickens
I'm trying to find something inflammatory here but honestly my entire feed is basically just this forever and ever. People I know and am acquainted with in real life just posting about what they're doing. A few political posts here and there, and generally those don't get any comments.
When you have billions of users, and you know every little detail about their lives, "millionaires plus guys sleeping in their car" is probably it's own little segment.
> I must have really different experiences than all of these people that write these articles (it seems like there has been something like this, every week on HN, for the last 10 years)
Me too!
It's almost as if the recommendation algorithm and ad model end up showing and reinforcing different types of content and behavior for different sets of users.
We really need a good word for this process how different people on Facebook see different things-- how it's kind of "sifted," so to speak, in such a way that even if the user tries to venture out to find different content, they can easily end up back where they started. Like walking inside a sphere without knowing it.
For example, maybe I read articles like this one for a full decade and tried at least one time to find fake news and rabid content on Facebook. So I started looking, but lo and behold, the recommendation engine never hooked me up with the ICE Facebook group, or a proudboys group, or one of the zillion other nasty echo chambers these articles keep mentioning.
Did any of the articles you read for the last 10 years give a name to this phenomenon of keeping a user in a cordoned off area with their custom-sifted content? I'll be honest, I've never actively searched to see if such a term exists. But you'd think after all this time an article that uses such a term would have eventually been posted to my wall.
Me too!
It's almost as if the recommendation algorithm and ad model end up showing and reinforcing different types of content and behavior for different sets of users.
We really need a good word for this process how different people on Facebook see different things-- how it's kind of "sifted," so to speak, in such a way that even if the user tries to venture out to find different content, they can easily end up back where they started. Like walking inside a sphere without knowing it.
For example, maybe I read articles like this one for a full decade and tried at least one time to find fake news and rabid content on Facebook. So I started looking, but lo and behold, the recommendation engine never hooked me up with the ICE Facebook group, or a proudboys group, or one of the zillion other nasty echo chambers these articles keep mentioning.
Did any of the articles you read for the last 10 years give a name to this phenomenon of keeping a user in a cordoned off area with their custom-sifted content? I'll be honest, I've never actively searched to see if such a term exists. But you'd think after all this time an article that uses such a term would have eventually been posted to my wall.
[deleted]
This has been my experience as well. I am FB friends with some very right wing people (Coronavirus skeptic types) and left wing people (literal anarchists). My feed remains fairly innocuous and is mostly photos and comments from friends with the occasional discussion friend.
Occasionally I do have to mute someone that's getting too annoying or use the "stop showing me this" feature for certain re-shared content. These are actions I take every few months, so it's not a very regular maintenance.
Occasionally I do have to mute someone that's getting too annoying or use the "stop showing me this" feature for certain re-shared content. These are actions I take every few months, so it's not a very regular maintenance.
Twitter's character limit certainly begs for hot takes, but I find Twitter to be as filled with cat photos, Simpsons memes, movie rankings, and whatnot. Nevertheless, I do enjoy the political sparring there as well.
My qualm with the "Twitter is toxic" discourse is that it often (not accusing you of doing this) points the finger at people with opposing beliefs who are making _fun_ of each other, or being "snarky" as HN guidelines put it. Certainly HN isn't the place for that, nor should it be, but I don't see why Twitter should stop being a place for that. Of course there are users who do incite violence as you say, and I don't have a problem with calling them toxic, and moderating them.
I should also add that Twitter is far easier to curate -- there is no social obligation to follow people in your real world social circle.
My qualm with the "Twitter is toxic" discourse is that it often (not accusing you of doing this) points the finger at people with opposing beliefs who are making _fun_ of each other, or being "snarky" as HN guidelines put it. Certainly HN isn't the place for that, nor should it be, but I don't see why Twitter should stop being a place for that. Of course there are users who do incite violence as you say, and I don't have a problem with calling them toxic, and moderating them.
I should also add that Twitter is far easier to curate -- there is no social obligation to follow people in your real world social circle.
Twitter is also incredibly bad in many ways, but you can still switch to non-algorithmic timeline, you can be anon or pseudonymous, and people aren't socially "expected" to be on there.
On Twitter it's complete strangers who are the problem (and the occasional bluetick or celebrity). On Facebook, it's your friends and family being recommended all sorts of extremist propaganda groups to join.
(Oh, and there's an incredibly nasty feedback loop between the worst of the media and the worst of Twitter, producing things like the Graham Linehan anti-trans fiasco)
On Twitter it's complete strangers who are the problem (and the occasional bluetick or celebrity). On Facebook, it's your friends and family being recommended all sorts of extremist propaganda groups to join.
(Oh, and there's an incredibly nasty feedback loop between the worst of the media and the worst of Twitter, producing things like the Graham Linehan anti-trans fiasco)
You can also switch to non algorithmic timeline on facebook: https://www.facebook.com/?sk=h_chr
Look, I'm not trying to defend facebook here. I agree that social media is basically a drug, and have said many times that one day we will look back at it the way we look back now at cigarettes.
But I think it's a little bit ridiculous to see all of the fingers get pointed at facebook when at least my experience has been that facebook is bad, and twitter is infinitely worse to the point where somebody could reasonably assume that twitter was actively trying to create chaos and make people hate one another.
Look, I'm not trying to defend facebook here. I agree that social media is basically a drug, and have said many times that one day we will look back at it the way we look back now at cigarettes.
But I think it's a little bit ridiculous to see all of the fingers get pointed at facebook when at least my experience has been that facebook is bad, and twitter is infinitely worse to the point where somebody could reasonably assume that twitter was actively trying to create chaos and make people hate one another.
> Twitter on the other hand is just pure toxic garbage which seems made to intentionally divide people and incite hatred and eventually violence.
That's also my impression. I mostly use FB for my neighborhood, hiking, biking, bird watching or any kind of nature related groups. It's been mostly pleasant experience for me. I think you can use FB without lowering yourself in all that outrage and drama. It's absolutely doable.
Twitter, OTOH, is a cesspool. I feel the whole platform was designed to congregate the worst of humanity and to bring out the worst in any decent person. It's almost impossible to use Twitter without causing emotional harm to yourself or the others. I find it interesting that FB gets so much hate from media, but Twitter seems to be a media-darling.
That's also my impression. I mostly use FB for my neighborhood, hiking, biking, bird watching or any kind of nature related groups. It's been mostly pleasant experience for me. I think you can use FB without lowering yourself in all that outrage and drama. It's absolutely doable.
Twitter, OTOH, is a cesspool. I feel the whole platform was designed to congregate the worst of humanity and to bring out the worst in any decent person. It's almost impossible to use Twitter without causing emotional harm to yourself or the others. I find it interesting that FB gets so much hate from media, but Twitter seems to be a media-darling.
I think it’s little to do with your local circles and more to do with the content you interact with. I know someone whose Facebook is mostly helpful tips, cooking, and family photos without any politics. Another person in the same household has a very different Facebook experience with lots of politics and religion and toxicity. This is coming from an extremely rural part of Ohio with people who have a very conservative social circle.
The difference is that the one person doesn’t care about politics very much and thus doesn’t interact with political content if it shows up, whereas the other person gets very invested into political content. I myself deleted Facebook because I was getting far too invested into political content.
The overall point being that Facebook’s machine learning algorithm is going to increase your engagement with the platform by showing you posts with content you’re more likely to interact with.
So I guess the question is: OP, do you have a tendency to interact and comment on political posts if they ever come up, or do you just ignore them?
The difference is that the one person doesn’t care about politics very much and thus doesn’t interact with political content if it shows up, whereas the other person gets very invested into political content. I myself deleted Facebook because I was getting far too invested into political content.
The overall point being that Facebook’s machine learning algorithm is going to increase your engagement with the platform by showing you posts with content you’re more likely to interact with.
So I guess the question is: OP, do you have a tendency to interact and comment on political posts if they ever come up, or do you just ignore them?
The ratio of signal to noise on my facebook feed is much worse than my twitter feed. Maybe I'm the right target segment for twitter (young professional in tech) but I see 100x more interesting content from tech/comedians/VCs on twitter as compared to FB, which even my elder family members don't use anymore (they all use whatsapp groups for sharing photos).
Journalists also have an axe to grind with Facebook, seeing as the primary revenue source for journalism is (used to be?) advertisements.
I have exactly the same experience on both FB and Twitter. And the same reflection for a while regarding recent articles. Most on my FB feed are sharing moments of their life. Twitter is a chaos of retweets etc.
I have the exact opposite experience tbh. It probably depends on the network of people you engage with. Twitter is, for me, mostly about professional networking. I just tweet about software development and follow other developers.
Facebook is where I am "friends" with extended family and random people from high school. This is where all the toxic garbage in my social media life comes from. Thank goodness for the option to "unfollow but don't unfriend" there.
Facebook is where I am "friends" with extended family and random people from high school. This is where all the toxic garbage in my social media life comes from. Thank goodness for the option to "unfollow but don't unfriend" there.
> My facebook is mostly people showing pictures of stuff, sharing memes, some movie discussion groups, event planning groups. It seems like mostly just people using facebook as a proxy for real world interactions.
Lucky you!
For me: A childhood friend's mother reposts anti-muslim propaganda right out of the nazi playbook. My friends on the left also repost stuff that's tonedeaf, but it's a bit harder to explain why.
Lucky you!
For me: A childhood friend's mother reposts anti-muslim propaganda right out of the nazi playbook. My friends on the left also repost stuff that's tonedeaf, but it's a bit harder to explain why.
My Twitter feed is mostly people sharing art and personal projects.
I can see where people get this idea, though. Twitter is trying really hard to make it impossible to curate your feed. They started jamming "follow topic" suggestions into mine recently, which appear to be random tweets from angry video game nerds I don't know or care about. I had to write my own script to remove them from the page since there seems to be no way to do it through Twitter's own settings.
I really wish they'd let me keep it to just the people I follow, and the things they like and retweet. I don't want to see anything else.
I can see where people get this idea, though. Twitter is trying really hard to make it impossible to curate your feed. They started jamming "follow topic" suggestions into mine recently, which appear to be random tweets from angry video game nerds I don't know or care about. I had to write my own script to remove them from the page since there seems to be no way to do it through Twitter's own settings.
I really wish they'd let me keep it to just the people I follow, and the things they like and retweet. I don't want to see anything else.
My mom doesn't use Twitter, and her Facebook feed gets much worse than Twitter, fast.
What do you think motivated them to be Twitter users instead of Facebook users?
The Atlantic has always been a kind of tabloid for people who fancy themselves intellectuals, especially with its cover stories. After seeming like they were really on the brink for a few years there, not really knowing how to do digital, they turned it around - apparently by doubling down on this approach. High-minded clickbait for right-thinking elites, in other words. Have a look at their "most popular articles" box and you'll frequently see some breathless, hysterical stuff.
It's a shame, too, because a majority of their content is probably still pretty good! Their pandemic coverage is a good example. But their editorial staff need engagement and they're gonna drive it by pushing the same "dark" buttons (fear, anger) that everyone else pushes these days. Ironic they're doing it in a critical article about Facebook.
It's a shame, too, because a majority of their content is probably still pretty good! Their pandemic coverage is a good example. But their editorial staff need engagement and they're gonna drive it by pushing the same "dark" buttons (fear, anger) that everyone else pushes these days. Ironic they're doing it in a critical article about Facebook.
> The Atlantic has always been a kind of tabloid for people who fancy themselves intellectuals, especially with its cover stories
Case in point: Ghostbusters has a brief gag on The Atlantic and it's over the top writing in 1984.
Timestamp at 1:55 in this clip:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwKR_y93izs
Case in point: Ghostbusters has a brief gag on The Atlantic and it's over the top writing in 1984.
Timestamp at 1:55 in this clip:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwKR_y93izs
> Ironic they're doing it in a critical article about Facebook.
They're both fighting for the same advertising dollar pile. And to be honest Facebook is walking away with it.
They're both fighting for the same advertising dollar pile. And to be honest Facebook is walking away with it.
Wait what? You think The Atlantic leans right?
floren - got it, whoosh right over my head. Read that too fast.
floren - got it, whoosh right over my head. Read that too fast.
"Right-thinking" means "agreeing with the Atlantic", not "politically conservative".
Wow. As much as I do agree with this, this is some hyperbolic writing. I've read so many articles just like this one, they show up on HN quite often it seems, and I've never seen one that had what seemed like a realistic fix to the problem. I don't think there is a fix really. All social media platforms will be full of bots/fakes that exist to spread garbage. All social media platforms will be full of real people doing the same. It also seems like the loudest people (and bots) are the most toxic and get the most engagement. It's people, all the way down, and there will always be a bunch of people doing the wrong thing. Those people will be highly incentivized and motivated, while the rest of us will just be looking for something to read.
(Also, maybe interesting, the author of this is the executive editor of The Atlantic, not just some reporter.)
(Also, maybe interesting, the author of this is the executive editor of The Atlantic, not just some reporter.)
The fix is easy and it's simple -- stop using them! Normalize it. Encourage others to do the same. Make it "cool" to not be on them/"lame" to use them.
I struggle to see how personal FB/IG/Twitter use is anything other than a net negative at this point. And it's gotten a lot more so over the last several years, IMO.
I struggle to see how personal FB/IG/Twitter use is anything other than a net negative at this point. And it's gotten a lot more so over the last several years, IMO.
> stop using them
Very quick thought experiment. FB had about 70 billion in income in 2019, and 2.7 billion monthly users. That's $25/user/year.
So maybe transition FB to a paid platform? In return, no advertisements, no tracking, no 'adversarial' feed algorithms.
I know that a large chunk of monthly FB users would not pay, and that a lot of the problems aren't from the algorithms, but rather with the groups and communities people form themselves, and what people share with each other.
I post pretty rarely on FB, and when I use it, I only look at particular people's pages, so I'm not (directly) subject to the dreaded feed.
As some others have said, using it as described, my personal FB experience is pretty positive. To be clear: I do manually follow a wide variety of people, across the socio-political spectrum. There is a certain amount of noise but the signal is much higher. And I will naturally tend to stop following people who primarily share/reshare toxic crap.
Very quick thought experiment. FB had about 70 billion in income in 2019, and 2.7 billion monthly users. That's $25/user/year.
So maybe transition FB to a paid platform? In return, no advertisements, no tracking, no 'adversarial' feed algorithms.
I know that a large chunk of monthly FB users would not pay, and that a lot of the problems aren't from the algorithms, but rather with the groups and communities people form themselves, and what people share with each other.
I post pretty rarely on FB, and when I use it, I only look at particular people's pages, so I'm not (directly) subject to the dreaded feed.
As some others have said, using it as described, my personal FB experience is pretty positive. To be clear: I do manually follow a wide variety of people, across the socio-political spectrum. There is a certain amount of noise but the signal is much higher. And I will naturally tend to stop following people who primarily share/reshare toxic crap.
I’m 100% on board with this. It seems to me that the only way out is if we reject these things on a cultural level. Being on social media should be a disgrace.
If social networks discourage you from participating, then they really are Doomsday machines, according to the intent of a Doomsday machine.
Problem is - by removing sane people the thing will become even more insane... And most people there are unable to notice - they form democratic majority - nowadays things can accelerate downhill very fast.
The solution to some of these problems is obvious: ban collection of data for advertising purposes and ban targeted, cross platform advertising. You would still be allowed to advertise, but ads would have to function like magazine ads effectively where the only targeting is by site interest. This would force these social media companies (and many others) to change their business model and actually charge users directly for services which would not only shrink the user base but would make running a bot farm increasingly unaffordable at scale.
While we're spitballing suggestions: make automated systems liable for publishing recommendations to extremist material.
You can argue that s230 protects them just hosting it for other people. However, if Facebook suggests you join "Islamist Kill-The-Infidels And Cake Recipes" because you're into cake, that's entirely their speech.
You can argue that s230 protects them just hosting it for other people. However, if Facebook suggests you join "Islamist Kill-The-Infidels And Cake Recipes" because you're into cake, that's entirely their speech.
> Those people will be highly incentivized
not if we don't incentivize them - we just need a social media platform to not be an advertisement platform
not if we don't incentivize them - we just need a social media platform to not be an advertisement platform
What if we got rid of "sharing"? Like, what if I could only read posts by my direct contacts, but there was no way for ads or posts from "friends of friends" (e.g. the bot that my conspiracy-obsessed uncle follows) to show up in my feed? Limit the reach of bots and echo chambers.
>not if we don't incentivize them - we just need a social media platform to not be an advertisement platform
Which is why we need to make decentralized, federated, non-commercial social networks dead simple to set up and use (shameless plug[0]).
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25270070
Which is why we need to make decentralized, federated, non-commercial social networks dead simple to set up and use (shameless plug[0]).
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25270070
Again, this is just thinking about the problem incorrectly. You think people are vain, reactionary, signaling-obsessed, shallow and gossipy because Facebook put a fucking ad system on their website?
I don’t. People were clearly already vain, reactionary, signaling-obsessed, shallow and gossipy, and the ad system isn’t (by itself) the part that makes Facebook an existential threat.
The misaligned A.I. which drives engagement — or whatever the precise metric is — with no regard for anything else, and optimises that metric ruthlessly with continuous variations to tease out the most effective way to maximise eyeball-seconds, that’s the problem.
The paperclip factory doesn’t hate you, it’s just that you’re made of stuff that can be used to make more paperclips.
The misaligned A.I. which drives engagement — or whatever the precise metric is — with no regard for anything else, and optimises that metric ruthlessly with continuous variations to tease out the most effective way to maximise eyeball-seconds, that’s the problem.
The paperclip factory doesn’t hate you, it’s just that you’re made of stuff that can be used to make more paperclips.
No, but Facebook will deliberately "optimise for engagement", regardless of whether the engagement is positive or negative for the user or society, because ads.
Facebook wasn't the cesspit it is today when your news feed actually showed you your friends updates in chronological order.
Hell, it was better still even before the GD news feed even existed.
Facebook wasn't the cesspit it is today when your news feed actually showed you your friends updates in chronological order.
Hell, it was better still even before the GD news feed even existed.
I guess I just don’t understand the argument. For decades everyone knew commercial breaks were just that, no one was being influenced by 30 second ads on TV. The stuff that influenced people back then is the same stuff that influences people today, social pressure and desire to fit in/attain status.
Facebook ads, if anything, should be a distraction from social pressure. People are creating the social pressure to express yourself, and it’s now manifesting in shallow ways (too much pressure). Ads is not what’s causing this.
If there’s any argument to make, and maybe I’ve been missing this the whole time, maybe you guys are saying platforms like Facebook abstract you into a living Advertisement. Thus, you must behave like an advertisement (get attention at all costs), and that is the core of their ad system, you, like a human battery in the matrix.
But, there’s no argument to be made if you realize you’re jacked into the matrix and can leave. If you’re aware, you can bounce.
Do we bear no responsibility at all here for how we behave?
Facebook ads, if anything, should be a distraction from social pressure. People are creating the social pressure to express yourself, and it’s now manifesting in shallow ways (too much pressure). Ads is not what’s causing this.
If there’s any argument to make, and maybe I’ve been missing this the whole time, maybe you guys are saying platforms like Facebook abstract you into a living Advertisement. Thus, you must behave like an advertisement (get attention at all costs), and that is the core of their ad system, you, like a human battery in the matrix.
But, there’s no argument to be made if you realize you’re jacked into the matrix and can leave. If you’re aware, you can bounce.
Do we bear no responsibility at all here for how we behave?
> I guess I just don’t understand the argument. For decades everyone knew commercial breaks were just that, no one was being influenced by 30 second ads on TV. The stuff that influenced people back then is the same stuff that influences people today, social pressure and desire to fit in/attain status.
TV programming in the past was optimised for engagement as well. There were extremely limited slots, so each slot had to appeal to the maximal number of people. This resulted in content that was generally relatively bland and inoffensive.
Fast forward to today, and digital 'slots' are limitless. Each user gets their own personalised view. No longer do you need to optimise for what appeals to the maximal number of people as a group. Instead, you optimise for what results in continued engagement by each individual.
It turns out the vast majority of us are stupid (myself included) and are easily manipulated through negative / divisive / controversial content.
The revenue model hasn't changed. It's the content delivery that has.
So to your point, I agree, ads aren't the problem. To my point, Facebook as it exists today is the problem.
TV programming in the past was optimised for engagement as well. There were extremely limited slots, so each slot had to appeal to the maximal number of people. This resulted in content that was generally relatively bland and inoffensive.
Fast forward to today, and digital 'slots' are limitless. Each user gets their own personalised view. No longer do you need to optimise for what appeals to the maximal number of people as a group. Instead, you optimise for what results in continued engagement by each individual.
It turns out the vast majority of us are stupid (myself included) and are easily manipulated through negative / divisive / controversial content.
The revenue model hasn't changed. It's the content delivery that has.
So to your point, I agree, ads aren't the problem. To my point, Facebook as it exists today is the problem.
> Do we bear no responsibility at all here for how we behave?
If all the infrastructure around you is intended for driving, it's tough to blame you for not walking instead.
Either software design has a real impact on how users behave and interact with a system or it doesn't. If you concede that design can impact a user's behavior, then it becomes a question of "how much" and the ethics of how to use that power. The irony is that by placing the burden on users to counteract the tendencies that are openly being encouraged by the software we absolve ourselves of our responsibility as designers, engineers, and architects to consider ethics in our work.
Do we bear no responsibility at all here for what we build?
If all the infrastructure around you is intended for driving, it's tough to blame you for not walking instead.
Either software design has a real impact on how users behave and interact with a system or it doesn't. If you concede that design can impact a user's behavior, then it becomes a question of "how much" and the ethics of how to use that power. The irony is that by placing the burden on users to counteract the tendencies that are openly being encouraged by the software we absolve ourselves of our responsibility as designers, engineers, and architects to consider ethics in our work.
Do we bear no responsibility at all here for what we build?
> Do we bear no responsibility at all here for how we behave?
as described in tfa, the ad infrastructure is maximizing controversy and devisiveness when it optimizes for engagement. it's like inciting a mob - the instigator is more culpable than the members
as described in tfa, the ad infrastructure is maximizing controversy and devisiveness when it optimizes for engagement. it's like inciting a mob - the instigator is more culpable than the members
No, but FB/Twitter promote people who are vain, etc. because they drive traffic.
In a system like Google Reader or FB/Twitter before algorithmic feeds, you just see what your friends post in roughly chronological order. It still has the problem that people like to post junk, but there's a natural limit on it. Algorithmic feeds however promote "hot" content, which is pretty much inevitably emotionally driven. There are a lot of possible fixes, such as rate limiters and manual review of high performing content, but they all come down to the same thing: don't let sheer virality be the driving metric. The best way to decouple virality is just to make advertising against algorithmic feeds illegal.
In a system like Google Reader or FB/Twitter before algorithmic feeds, you just see what your friends post in roughly chronological order. It still has the problem that people like to post junk, but there's a natural limit on it. Algorithmic feeds however promote "hot" content, which is pretty much inevitably emotionally driven. There are a lot of possible fixes, such as rate limiters and manual review of high performing content, but they all come down to the same thing: don't let sheer virality be the driving metric. The best way to decouple virality is just to make advertising against algorithmic feeds illegal.
This is the kind of writing that seems hyperbolic until you actually think about what's at stake. I think if you give serious consideration to the global implications of a worst-case civic outcome in the United States -- the world's largest economic and nuclear power -- you realize that terrible outcomes are possible, and maybe even likely.
I mean it's not like the bad outcomes are theoretical here. We've grown up in a blessed time, but we have relatively recent examples of how civic dysfunction can lead to genocide and massive world wars. The risk this time is similar except that (1) political destabilization is visibly happening in many nations at once, and (2) the tools of warfare and genocide are orders-of-magnitude more powerful.
I mean it's not like the bad outcomes are theoretical here. We've grown up in a blessed time, but we have relatively recent examples of how civic dysfunction can lead to genocide and massive world wars. The risk this time is similar except that (1) political destabilization is visibly happening in many nations at once, and (2) the tools of warfare and genocide are orders-of-magnitude more powerful.
> I don't think there is a fix really.
Maybe not a "fix" per se, but one big step could be a ban on infini-scrolling in websites. I think having to click on "page 2," scroll to the bottom of the page again, click on "page 3," etc, would introduce enough friction to get people to stop a little earlier.
(My own personal rule on Hacker News is that I never go deeper than page 2. That helps me not spend all day on HN) ;-)
Maybe not a "fix" per se, but one big step could be a ban on infini-scrolling in websites. I think having to click on "page 2," scroll to the bottom of the page again, click on "page 3," etc, would introduce enough friction to get people to stop a little earlier.
(My own personal rule on Hacker News is that I never go deeper than page 2. That helps me not spend all day on HN) ;-)
Limit public posts. One can engage with individuals directly all they want, but there is a limit on the number of public posts one can make, and they are scrutinized for misinformation before going public. This will drive the creation of "discussion/topic groups" in an effort to get around the public posting scrutiny, but placing a limit on the size of a discussion/topic group halts that effort.
Such changes will be required by law. FaceBook is a controversy engine, and as such they will fight tooth and nail to maintain as much controversy generation capability as they can, because that is what drives engagement there. It is certainly not friends sharing their days.
Such changes will be required by law. FaceBook is a controversy engine, and as such they will fight tooth and nail to maintain as much controversy generation capability as they can, because that is what drives engagement there. It is certainly not friends sharing their days.
FB has turned into the Paperclip Maximizer [0]. The question I have is what do we do when we recognize that there is a paperclip maximizer among us. This is a pattern that is new with internet technology, and we’ve never had to deal with before.
I would also argue that Google Search with its SEO crap has also become a paperclip maximizer (or at least on its way to becoming one).
As a civilization, we need to start thinking about it like this before we destroy ourselves.
[0] - https://www.lesswrong.com/tag/paperclip-maximizer
I would also argue that Google Search with its SEO crap has also become a paperclip maximizer (or at least on its way to becoming one).
As a civilization, we need to start thinking about it like this before we destroy ourselves.
[0] - https://www.lesswrong.com/tag/paperclip-maximizer
Like all scifi, "Paperclip Maximizer" is just a fable about something that already happened but you put it in the future to make it seem more interesting. (E.g. robots are just slaves; space colonization is just regular colonization; Weyland-Yutani is just the East India Company; World War 3 is just WW2; etc.)
Capitalism has always been the paperclip maximizer, for better or worse. Why did Europeans drag a bunch of Africans across the ocean to America? Well, there's this thing called "money" and Europeans were trying to maximize it, and it turned out that getting cheap labor to work in the Americas would let you trade stuff to China and collect money in Europe. It makes no actual goddamn sense, but it maximized numbers, so it happened.
Capitalism has always been the paperclip maximizer, for better or worse. Why did Europeans drag a bunch of Africans across the ocean to America? Well, there's this thing called "money" and Europeans were trying to maximize it, and it turned out that getting cheap labor to work in the Americas would let you trade stuff to China and collect money in Europe. It makes no actual goddamn sense, but it maximized numbers, so it happened.
Slavery ended because human values made it end. A paperclip optimiser doesn’t have human values.
Slavery ended because human beings (the slaves) made it end. They revolted constantly, and the threat of revolt wasn't worth the money savings. No European wanted another Hati, so that was the beginning of the end. In the case of the US, after the Civil War had begun, slaves fled to the Union camps in large numbers, which forced the Union to emancipate and enlist them.
Anyway, capitalism doesn't have human values. Nor do nations. Human beings have human values, and we have to band together to impose those values on the various collectives that oppress us… but then because we've banded together, that band becomes the new form of oppression! So it goes.
Anyway, capitalism doesn't have human values. Nor do nations. Human beings have human values, and we have to band together to impose those values on the various collectives that oppress us… but then because we've banded together, that band becomes the new form of oppression! So it goes.
There's a theory that slaveowners were just outcompeted by machine owners...
Machines don't make you stop doing slavery. If anything, the forces go the other way: slavery was dying in the US at the end of the 1700s (slavery had been legal in the North too but was being abolished slowly) then the cotton gin made it suddenly hugely profitable in the South and gave it a big boost.
Hmm, what about outcompeting militarily?
I don’t disagree, but technology have now given us a near-zero cost of duplicating that paperclip, so both the growth rate and practical upper bound are much higher than we’ve ever imagined before.
> It has one simple goal of maximizing the number of paperclips; human life, learning, joy, and so on are not specified as goals.
Replace paperclips with dollars and you’ve got Facebook.
Replace paperclips with dollars and you’ve got Facebook.
Facebook is what you get with s/paperclip/engagement/. What you get with s/paperclip/$/ is just capitalism.
YouTube has just as much of a monopoly in its category if not more than Facebook (with similar influence over society) yet we dont see the level of regular attacks (I'm not here to defend either, I'm a critic, but just pointing this out). Facebook total users: about 2.7 billion (with probably 80% dominance in its category). YouTube: about 2 billion but with a ~95% video stream dominance. The difference seems to be in the politics. I don't see the Atlantic or peers coming down on YouTubes dominance and influence.
Edit: As others have pointed out in here the difference might also be financial. Facebook publishes news articles and YouTube does not. A broken up Facebook offers a fractured publishing market and better pricing for news distribution.
Edit: As others have pointed out in here the difference might also be financial. Facebook publishes news articles and YouTube does not. A broken up Facebook offers a fractured publishing market and better pricing for news distribution.
FWIW, I do see some similar criticisms of YouTube and its algorithms. I don’t read the Atlantic so I can’t compare scale, but it does happen.
Good point, I do see this but it seems to be from the anti-censorship side on the right. It seems the right is focused on the YouTube algos and the left is out for Facebook influence basically since the 2016 election. In all, these media debates over which platforms are dangerous seem highly partisan. We should really be looking at them through a neutral light. What is a monopoly and what is not a monopoly.
In addition to this, people on the left have talked about how certain pockets of YT (gaming, action movies, self help) quickly funnels people into a corner of YT that's rife with misogyny and pseudo-rationalist fallacies.
Also the term Monopoly has tricky denotations and connotations; if you read Thiel's work you'll be inclined to have a strict definition of Monopoly (Ex: an online retailer isn't a monopoly because people still buy most things Elsewhere), whereas some have a looser definition (where Online Retailer is defined as likely monopoly because it is online retailer for everything that it can be, while also tracking sales data and using a white label brand to undercut other brands' SKUs)
Also the term Monopoly has tricky denotations and connotations; if you read Thiel's work you'll be inclined to have a strict definition of Monopoly (Ex: an online retailer isn't a monopoly because people still buy most things Elsewhere), whereas some have a looser definition (where Online Retailer is defined as likely monopoly because it is online retailer for everything that it can be, while also tracking sales data and using a white label brand to undercut other brands' SKUs)
There are a lot of articles about YouTube's recommendation algorithms and how it spread fake news, conspiracies and similar problematic things.
For example, this https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25359003
For example, this https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25359003
> No one, not even Mark Zuckerberg, can control the product he made.
Well, one can control oneself, that's about the best we can do. As others have mentioned, don't use it.
I tried that. After years of not using FB at all, I missed out on some important news that was only posted there.
I decided to get back on FB, on my own terms. I created Bubble [1] and now I can visit FB with most tracking disabled, no ads, I only see posts from my friends, and even then only posts that do not link to news websites or contain political keywords.
My signal/noise ratio is usually about 50%. I love my clean feed. Works on LinkedIn, Twitter, others.
But the root problem goes deeper -- clearly not everyone cares or has the motivation to filter their own social media feeds. Some people like reading echo-chamber/fake news posts, truth is far down on their list of priorities.
I don't know what the big-picture answer is.
[1] https://getbubblenow.com (currently in beta)
Well, one can control oneself, that's about the best we can do. As others have mentioned, don't use it.
I tried that. After years of not using FB at all, I missed out on some important news that was only posted there.
I decided to get back on FB, on my own terms. I created Bubble [1] and now I can visit FB with most tracking disabled, no ads, I only see posts from my friends, and even then only posts that do not link to news websites or contain political keywords.
My signal/noise ratio is usually about 50%. I love my clean feed. Works on LinkedIn, Twitter, others.
But the root problem goes deeper -- clearly not everyone cares or has the motivation to filter their own social media feeds. Some people like reading echo-chamber/fake news posts, truth is far down on their list of priorities.
I don't know what the big-picture answer is.
[1] https://getbubblenow.com (currently in beta)
I got tired of the garbage. First of all, I made a decision Facebook is not the center of my life and decided to stop posting personal things on it except for major announcements. I also started doing the following very aggressively:
- unfollowing everyone who only tended to posted stuff I didn't want to see,
- using the "Hide Post", "Hide All From X", and "Hide Ad" options very liberally - if I had any problem at all with the post or ad whatsoever,
- reporting posts that had content I didn't like and even had a hint of violating Facebook policies--none got deleted but I think this affects Facebook's AI.
I'd love to see a list of everything I've blocked and share it, but I don't see how to get that from Facebook.
It took several months, but probably would have been less time if I was a daily Facebook user.
At this point I have no political or news items (things I hid like crazy) on my Facebook at all. I have fun things from groups I've joined and that's it.
It's boring and quiet, and there if I really need it without annoyances.
But it did take some work and it's true, not everyone cares to put in that work. But they'll repost dumb meme stuff all day.
- unfollowing everyone who only tended to posted stuff I didn't want to see,
- using the "Hide Post", "Hide All From X", and "Hide Ad" options very liberally - if I had any problem at all with the post or ad whatsoever,
- reporting posts that had content I didn't like and even had a hint of violating Facebook policies--none got deleted but I think this affects Facebook's AI.
I'd love to see a list of everything I've blocked and share it, but I don't see how to get that from Facebook.
It took several months, but probably would have been less time if I was a daily Facebook user.
At this point I have no political or news items (things I hid like crazy) on my Facebook at all. I have fun things from groups I've joined and that's it.
It's boring and quiet, and there if I really need it without annoyances.
But it did take some work and it's true, not everyone cares to put in that work. But they'll repost dumb meme stuff all day.
Another week, another hyperbolic article written by journalists against the industry eating their lunch. I hate Facebook as much as anyone else, but let’s be honest here: the Information Age means that the technologies of information generation and propagation have been democratized. Just like the Church was angry at the Printing Press, the old gatekeepers (legacy media) are rabidly resisting the new technology.
Ultimately it isn’t a question of right or wrong, but when and how. Get used to it. The genie isn’t going back in the bottle and these top-down solutions are still stuck in the previous century.
Ultimately it isn’t a question of right or wrong, but when and how. Get used to it. The genie isn’t going back in the bottle and these top-down solutions are still stuck in the previous century.
[deleted]
If you have to repeatedly compare an opt-in social network with an automated nuclear launch system, you don't have much of a point.
I agree with the broad message that social media has had a net negative effect on the world. I think the Doomsday Machine metaphor doesn't work, and even though I'm open to the argument the article was making, I don't think it did a good job making it.
I wonder whether the media climate created by social media has made it harder to write persuasively against it. In order to be part of a successful business model centered around social media, these articles tend to embody the qualities (inflammatory, reactionary, narrow-minded, unfocused) of the thing they're railing against.
I wonder whether the media climate created by social media has made it harder to write persuasively against it. In order to be part of a successful business model centered around social media, these articles tend to embody the qualities (inflammatory, reactionary, narrow-minded, unfocused) of the thing they're railing against.
That article is one of the dumbest articles I've read in an unusually dumb year.
Why do these journalists think we should all only ever be spoon-fed inoffensive, carefully-curated pap? And when was the last time anyone changed their mind about anything because of something they saw on Facebook? The worst it does is confirm existing bias and prejudice.
Why do these journalists think we should all only ever be spoon-fed inoffensive, carefully-curated pap? And when was the last time anyone changed their mind about anything because of something they saw on Facebook? The worst it does is confirm existing bias and prejudice.
Well, the Atlantic is not really free now, but I feel that this criticism still applies :
https://samzdat.com/2017/10/13/the-guardians-inferno/
(This is not just about social media.)
https://samzdat.com/2017/10/13/the-guardians-inferno/
(This is not just about social media.)
Social media is, well, social. It is a place for people to express how they feel, not how they think. I find it surprising that anyone thinks Facebook could ever be a place of rational thought. It isn't for that.
> Facebook inadvertently auto-generated jaunty recruitment videos for the Islamic State featuring anti-Semitic messages and burning American flags.
Wow what an amazing slant. Done reading at this line.
Wow what an amazing slant. Done reading at this line.
re. Twitter negative comments: sorry, it's very valuable to me. It's easy to curate: I use LIST. I have a focused list ("story") which provides great, relevant information. It seems there is a subgroup of people on Twitter who understand how to use (& how not to use) it / imo Twitter is underrated.
Extend the indefinite public health orders to Facebook
Health and Human Services can ban Facebook and states have clauses in their own emergency orders to automatically include that
To pass constitutional muster, you can say “publicly traded social media networks that brag about how many fake users they have with over 500 million of them”
Health and Human Services can ban Facebook and states have clauses in their own emergency orders to automatically include that
To pass constitutional muster, you can say “publicly traded social media networks that brag about how many fake users they have with over 500 million of them”
Getting tired of these melodramatic think pieces.
Media loves Facebook articles. Perception.
> If you owned a store and someone walked in and started shouting Nazi propaganda or recruiting terrorists near the cash register, would you, as the shop owner, tell all of the other customers you couldn’t possibly intervene?
Perhaps a better metaphor is how a Jehovah's Witness was forbidden to preach from a sidewalk of a company town. She was later found in her right to do that by the Supreme Court.
But in both of these cases, the issue is that of scale - neither compares to Facebook's megascale.
Perhaps a better metaphor is how a Jehovah's Witness was forbidden to preach from a sidewalk of a company town. She was later found in her right to do that by the Supreme Court.
But in both of these cases, the issue is that of scale - neither compares to Facebook's megascale.
I hate to be this dismissive, but I couldn’t find a single paragraph in that article that provided any kind of compelling analysis or insight into human behavior.
I’m less concerned about misinformation propagating through a platform vs why misinformation even works on someone. I don’t care if the whole country of Russia sat there and told you lies with fake accounts 24/7, I want to know why you believed any of it.
Anyways, is The Atlantic supposed to be a reputable website? This article isn’t even the fun kind of hot take, it’s the trite tacky type of hot take (oh, is the Social Dilemma out? Are we going to keep things thematic and piggy back off that?).
I’m less concerned about misinformation propagating through a platform vs why misinformation even works on someone. I don’t care if the whole country of Russia sat there and told you lies with fake accounts 24/7, I want to know why you believed any of it.
Anyways, is The Atlantic supposed to be a reputable website? This article isn’t even the fun kind of hot take, it’s the trite tacky type of hot take (oh, is the Social Dilemma out? Are we going to keep things thematic and piggy back off that?).
It is a social network hack: 1) broadcast misinformation wide and often; 2) some individuals lacking in critical thinking accept the misinformation as true and start repeating it; 3) as the misinformation propagates through those that do not verify, it begins to be noticed by those that might verify new information, but so many people in their sphere have adopted this information they accept the information on faith that their peers are like them and have verified the new information; 4) this process repeats until those that do verify are negated by those that refuse to accept that their peers and themselves could be wrong.
> I want to know why you believed any of it
People are really keen to believe the worst of their enemies. People also are prone to believing in "revelations" and "scoops".
People are really keen to believe the worst of their enemies. People also are prone to believing in "revelations" and "scoops".
Just knowing why people believe the things doesn't stop people from believing lies or the damage it can do to them and those around them.
Exactly. People know smoking is deadly but they still light up anyway.
You can know that there is a misinformation bubble and it still influence you.
You can know that there is a misinformation bubble and it still influence you.
So, should someone not have the liberty to smoke? I just want to get to the bottom of the logic. Are you my mom or dad?
I have the right to join an echo chamber, a straight up human right. I have the right to let Russia feed me misinformation. I have this right.
I have the right to join an echo chamber, a straight up human right. I have the right to let Russia feed me misinformation. I have this right.
> Anyways, is The Atlantic supposed to be a reputable website?
The Atlantic has been a monthly magazine for over 150 years. It is as reputable as, dunno, the New Yorker, Harpers, Mother Jones, etc.
The Atlantic has been a monthly magazine for over 150 years. It is as reputable as, dunno, the New Yorker, Harpers, Mother Jones, etc.
My facebook is mostly people showing pictures of stuff, sharing memes, some movie discussion groups, event planning groups. It seems like mostly just people using facebook as a proxy for real world interactions.
Twitter on the other hand is just pure toxic garbage which seems made to intentionally divide people and incite hatred and eventually violence.
I think there is a simple explanation for this: the people writing these articles are twitter users, and the people who use facebook are their outgroup.