4 ms·

Yes. We're talking about a platform that at it's best is birthday wishes, vacation and cat pictures. It's running on a paid content model, with advertisers sell

Yes. We're talking about a platform that at it's best is birthday wishes, vacation and cat pictures. It's running on a paid content model, with advertisers selling through viral videos and click-bait. It's good not to expect too much out of it.

Bud 10y ago
We're actually not; that's simply false. No, Facebook is not "at it's best" [sic] when it sticks to birthday wishes and cat pictures. It's actually at its best when it is truly social, in all senses of the word. When it facilitates real communication on real issues across a broad spectrum of people. When it spreads information, not misinformation.
- __jal 10y ago
  Not trying to speak for the original poster, but what I took away from the argument is that when FB is "truly social", involving real issues, the potential rewards are sufficiently high that misinformation becomes valuable, thus dangerous. When it sticks to birthdays and cat pictures, there's no incentive to go hostile. Think of it as being somewhat similar to the arguments about the Flash Crash regarding HFT and liquidity: that HFT is great for liquidity until you need it, at which point it goes away[1]. I agree with others that detecting misinformation in the general case likely requires a theory of mind, and so something approaching "real" AI. I also agree that FB has a serious problem on their hands. And I'm so very glad I don't use it. [1] I advance no comment here about the correctness of that; just a comparison to illustrate what seems like an overlooked point.
  - taurath 10y ago
    This is the same as reddit. As social platforms get larger they starts diverging from their original userbase (programmers/geeks for reddit, college students for facebook) to apply to a wider and wider audience. Eventually the wider audience starts to look a whole lot like the demographics of a whole country (or maybe the world), and it becomes a platform with as many arguments as society in general. The solution to not becoming a battleground which is inherantly destabilizing to the platform is to not grow, or only grow in a single direction. State up front what your targeted user base is and keep to them. NeoGAF as a "gamers only" forum will survive a very long time, for instance. Facebook has sidestepped it by becoming a personal community for each user, but whenever they try to connect that personal community to the wider world through "shared" news, "shared" trends etc that are not personalized it causes a big ruckus.
- DanielBMarkham 10y ago
  Social communication is in-person, face-to-face communication. It's not moving bits around over an http interface. I love idealists, but it's time to take an honest accounting of the differences between the promises of the internet and the actuality.
  - Bud 10y ago
    Not anymore. I'm sorry, but that that view is now obsolete. The fact is that large and increasing quantities of our social communication now occur online. I'm not claiming this is salutary or calling it a good thing. I'm just stating the fact.
    - DanielBMarkham 10y ago
      I have no doubt that a lot of social information is being transferred in a new way, much the same as the introduction of the telephone allowed a lot of social information to be transferred in a new way. My point is that true socializing and socialization are human, not digital experiences. Not trying to be pedantic here. It's just important to sort out the terms used if any analysis is going to be useful. What's happening on facebook is not social. It's bits of data around being social. Different thing entirely. Perhaps we need a new term for whatever it is, but whatever we call it, it's not the same as face-to-face real socializing with real people.
      - severine 10y ago
        Aren't Bud and you socializing right now? Hell, I even feel I'm socializing a bit with you, how wrong am I?
        DanielBMarkham 10y ago
        Are you picking on me? Making a joke that we share? Challenging me to come up with a retort? Asking me to join in to a shared humorous narrative? Giving me a friendly jibe about an error or weakness you perceive? We assume positive intent online because otherwise we get flame wars, but there's a helluva lot of body language and inflection that can take the comment you made and make it mean a dozen things. All of that is lost. And all of it is important. In addition to the nuance, would I know severine if I saw them on the street? Miss them if they died? Remember the nice way they did X everytime we met? We are exchanging written opinions and statements, yes. These exchanges also occur in social interactions. But we are not socializing. There's no bond here that's become stronger, no subtle nuance or interplay that we're managing at a subconscious level. For all either of us knows, the other one is a bot. Or an alien. There's no humanity here.
- daveguy 10y ago
  If it is truly social then it will spread misinformation like wildfire. That's what people do -- gossip game magnified. That said, maybe Facebook is best when it is just spreading obviously unimportant content (in the sense of national and global affairs), like birthday wishes and cat pictures. No harm if the cat is implicated in wild conspiracy theories. It's not the cat pic sharing that is paid for by entities with motive and interest in spreading misleading messages.
- emp_zealoth 10y ago
  When Facebook is at it's best is taking money from nefarious actors and fucking up democracy In Poland, for good half year before our presidential election, then a year after I was getting obviously paid for posts from dozens upon dozens of right wing extremists. I am left-centrist (although my dad jokes at me that im a bolshevik). I don't have many friends who skew righ-wing either. Yet, there was my wall, chock full of sensationalist bs, for over A YEAR Wonder how much money Facebook earned in that time just from sad little Poland

Bud 10y ago

We're actually not; that's simply false. No, Facebook is not "at it's best" [sic] when it sticks to birthday wishes and cat pictures. It's actually at its best when it is truly social, in all senses of the word. When it facilitates real communication on real issues across a broad spectrum of people. When it spreads information, not misinformation.

__jal 10y ago
Not trying to speak for the original poster, but what I took away from the argument is that when FB is "truly social", involving real issues, the potential rewards are sufficiently high that misinformation becomes valuable, thus dangerous. When it sticks to birthdays and cat pictures, there's no incentive to go hostile. Think of it as being somewhat similar to the arguments about the Flash Crash regarding HFT and liquidity: that HFT is great for liquidity until you need it, at which point it goes away[1]. I agree with others that detecting misinformation in the general case likely requires a theory of mind, and so something approaching "real" AI. I also agree that FB has a serious problem on their hands. And I'm so very glad I don't use it. [1] I advance no comment here about the correctness of that; just a comparison to illustrate what seems like an overlooked point.
- taurath 10y ago
  This is the same as reddit. As social platforms get larger they starts diverging from their original userbase (programmers/geeks for reddit, college students for facebook) to apply to a wider and wider audience. Eventually the wider audience starts to look a whole lot like the demographics of a whole country (or maybe the world), and it becomes a platform with as many arguments as society in general. The solution to not becoming a battleground which is inherantly destabilizing to the platform is to not grow, or only grow in a single direction. State up front what your targeted user base is and keep to them. NeoGAF as a "gamers only" forum will survive a very long time, for instance. Facebook has sidestepped it by becoming a personal community for each user, but whenever they try to connect that personal community to the wider world through "shared" news, "shared" trends etc that are not personalized it causes a big ruckus.
DanielBMarkham 10y ago
Social communication is in-person, face-to-face communication. It's not moving bits around over an http interface. I love idealists, but it's time to take an honest accounting of the differences between the promises of the internet and the actuality.
- Bud 10y ago
  Not anymore. I'm sorry, but that that view is now obsolete. The fact is that large and increasing quantities of our social communication now occur online. I'm not claiming this is salutary or calling it a good thing. I'm just stating the fact.
  - DanielBMarkham 10y ago
    I have no doubt that a lot of social information is being transferred in a new way, much the same as the introduction of the telephone allowed a lot of social information to be transferred in a new way. My point is that true socializing and socialization are human, not digital experiences. Not trying to be pedantic here. It's just important to sort out the terms used if any analysis is going to be useful. What's happening on facebook is not social. It's bits of data around being social. Different thing entirely. Perhaps we need a new term for whatever it is, but whatever we call it, it's not the same as face-to-face real socializing with real people.
    - severine 10y ago
      Aren't Bud and you socializing right now? Hell, I even feel I'm socializing a bit with you, how wrong am I?
      - DanielBMarkham 10y ago
        Are you picking on me? Making a joke that we share? Challenging me to come up with a retort? Asking me to join in to a shared humorous narrative? Giving me a friendly jibe about an error or weakness you perceive? We assume positive intent online because otherwise we get flame wars, but there's a helluva lot of body language and inflection that can take the comment you made and make it mean a dozen things. All of that is lost. And all of it is important. In addition to the nuance, would I know severine if I saw them on the street? Miss them if they died? Remember the nice way they did X everytime we met? We are exchanging written opinions and statements, yes. These exchanges also occur in social interactions. But we are not socializing. There's no bond here that's become stronger, no subtle nuance or interplay that we're managing at a subconscious level. For all either of us knows, the other one is a bot. Or an alien. There's no humanity here.
daveguy 10y ago
If it is truly social then it will spread misinformation like wildfire. That's what people do -- gossip game magnified. That said, maybe Facebook is best when it is just spreading obviously unimportant content (in the sense of national and global affairs), like birthday wishes and cat pictures. No harm if the cat is implicated in wild conspiracy theories. It's not the cat pic sharing that is paid for by entities with motive and interest in spreading misleading messages.
emp_zealoth 10y ago
When Facebook is at it's best is taking money from nefarious actors and fucking up democracy In Poland, for good half year before our presidential election, then a year after I was getting obviously paid for posts from dozens upon dozens of right wing extremists. I am left-centrist (although my dad jokes at me that im a bolshevik). I don't have many friends who skew righ-wing either. Yet, there was my wall, chock full of sensationalist bs, for over A YEAR Wonder how much money Facebook earned in that time just from sad little Poland