10 ms·

I understand your frustration, though I find statements like Facebook simply kills democracy for their own benefit frustrating as well. Facebook is attempting t

by grzm 10y ago

I understand your frustration, though I find statements like Facebook simply kills democracy for their own benefit frustrating as well. Facebook is attempting to police the community they provide. Online communities, while they've been around in some form since the usenet days, are still a relatively new phenomenon, especially at the scale of billions, and there's a lot of stuff to figure out. What concrete steps would you have Facebook take? What should Facebook's goals be? What tradeoffs are worthwhile that ensure an overall positive experience? And still be a profitable business? Lots of things to balance, in my opinion. I think it's a very interesting and important challenge, but I'm not envious at all of doing it in public under the level of scrutiny that Facebook faces.

andrewvijay 10y ago
One concrete step would be to accept that they easily bring war/peace in any country they are allowed to operate. The moral responsibility of such a huge platform where people interact needs to be very high. Pointing fingers or giving sugar coated answers is not acceptable. Facebook's motto should be changed from 'connecting people' to 'connecting people to show only what they like'. See we both are arguing something here that is simply avoided so many times in facebook. That is the whole point. The tradeoff they should be allowing is to allow people to see/confront contradictions. Else its not a debate. Nobody gains knowledge or new thoughts. No one progresses apart from facebook.
- zdkl 10y ago
  So the bigger question as far as I've come to think of it: is a for profit company compatible with the role facebook is filling?
  - grzm 10y ago
    And if it's not for profit, it will still need income. Where will that income come from?
    - andrewvijay 10y ago
      I simply dont know answers to all these questions!! And quite frankly their top executives have to be worried about that. Not us.
      - grzm 10y ago
        And they obviously are. Facebook has been trying to address these issues, and has made missteps on the way. They wouldn't have issued the statements they have if they weren't concerned about it. I'd be really surprised if they're happy with the current situation and are going to just stop working on it. Maybe they're not working fast enough or in the way you want them to. But it's helpful to recognize that they're human, too. The issues of free speech and privacy and business and how they inter-relate are not solved issues, and things that we've grappled with as societies for at least a couple hundred years. Coupled with the novelty of online communities, it's not something I expect them to figure out overnight. It's good that you admit that you don't have answers to these questions. I don't either. Which is why I'm very slow to make statements like Facebook simply kills democracy for their own benefit. It just doesn't recognize the reality of the situation as I understand it.
        andrewvijay 10y ago
        > And they obviously are. Don't you think they are bit late in the US? :D >The issues of free speech and privacy and business and how they inter-relate are not solved issues, and things that we've grappled with as societies for at least a couple hundred years But this time its much more hurting than before because we know more now and shouldnt let bad things happen because of a company's business decisions.
        grzm 10y ago
        Obviously this is something you care about. I suggest you take some time, do some research, and spend some serious time thinking of concrete steps Facebook could take, and more importantly what you can do to help make the changes you want to see. At the end of the day, it's people that make changes. Expecting others to make those changes for you is likely to lead to more frustration for you. Be well, and good luck!
  - sparkzilla 10y ago
    While it appears as though your question is framed to get the answer that a non-profit could do Facebook's task better, there are other options. The core question is: is a social network compatible with news? There are other for-profit models that can work. A simple variation is not to use algorithmic presentation of the news feed at all and allow users to select the news they want to see, and to show all the news about the topic in the feed. This method has its own issues. For example, I run a bunch of of newsfeeds about entrepreneurs, (Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos etc) on LinkedIn and fairly often I get people complaining that they don't want to see negative news about the entrepreneur -- they only want to see positive news. They describe themselves as fans. I tell them that the won't understand the subject if they don't expose themselves to news they don't like. But think about that on Facebook - this negative news does not get shared, and there's no proper way to say, "this is negative but interesting", the best you've got is the "angry" emoticon. And you only see what Facebook want you to see. They turned off the option to view your feed by most recent items, not because it was difficult to follow, but because it made more money for them. So there are ways to fix these issues, but the cost is that you lose some readers and you lose some money. But for those who remain the experience is better - they are getting informed, not entertained. In its entire life Facebook has always put greed before user experience, so there's no way any of this will change.
    - zdkl 10y ago
      > The core question is: is a social network compatible with news? I understand the value of this question but it's not the core of the problem as I understand. Consider the progression of facebook as a platform. I hope my lack of eloquence won't hurt my point too much, not a native english speaker. Facebook was a valuable service when keeping track of one's social circle was still an analogic problem. Since we the public saw the value in digitizing the 'book keeping' of socialisation, we invested time into the platform to constitute a social group, architected as we saw fit. This at least was the experience of the early days of facebook for me and people I know. I imagine you share it to some degree. Compare that function to what the same company is pushing now. Their business is still acquiring user's time but they now have pivoted enough that the social book keeping aspect is quite secondary to most of the business layer of the company as far as I can tell. I have no business analysing whether focusing on information diffusion control is a good strategy for Facebook the company, I have no idea. The point that concerns me is that the users are now chained along because of time invested in the past. We as users should insist on having the social book keeping available as a low level (open source/GPL/WTFPL) platform on top of which one could choose to enhance that experience as is the business of information outlets. I have no issue with companies choosing profit over UX, but we the public should protest in some form or other while we still more or less have a choice.
- grzm 10y ago
  Facebook's motto should be changed from 'connecting people' to 'connecting people to show only what they like'. Is this what you think Facebook should be? Or what you think is a more accurate description of what Facebook is? What would this look like in concrete steps? How do you manage bullying? Knowingly spreading misinformation and disinformation? What prevents Facebook from becoming one big flamewar? How do you decide how to confront contradictions? What about people who don't want to use Facebook for debate? It's all well and good to make statements like The tradeoff they should be allowing is to allow people to see/confront contradictions. Else its not a debate. Nobody gains knowledge or new thoughts. No one progresses apart from Facebook. It's another thing all together to put in place the features that make this possible. I challenge you to put forth some concrete features that would address the concerns you have.
  - andrewvijay 10y ago
    >Is this what you think Facebook should be? It was a metaphor. >What would this look like in concrete steps? Taking social responsibility. I dont know the steps because I dont run that business only affected by it. >How do you manage bullying? >Knowingly spreading misinformation and disinformation? >What prevents Facebook from becoming one big flamewar? FB should be deciding on these. They can if they want to. >How do you decide how to confront contradictions? By letting people talk instead of hiding them from each other. >It's another thing all together to put in place the features that make this possible. Yeah of course and its big time they accepted they should.
    - saint_fiasco 10y ago
      Nobody is asking you to take the steps, just describe them. What steps would you take if you had all the resources at Facebook's disposal and it was your responsibility. Yes, I know it's not really your responsibility but it's all hypothetical.
      - EdHominem 10y ago
        Simple. Step back and let people listen to, and say, what they want. The police will undoubtedly come and arrest a few of them for what they say, but that's not your problem. Let the legal system handle the issues. The only thing making this a problem is Facebook's insistence on curating what you see so they can show you ads. They made this problem themselves and could solve it in an instant by stopping the interference.
- greyman 10y ago
  > connecting people to show only what they like But should Facebook decide what I should be shown for my own good? Because I mostly just really don't want to see what Facebook doesn't show me.
scalio 10y ago
> What tradeoffs are worthwhile that ensure an overall positive experience? And still be a profitable business? Facebook is a business, and real life is not always profitable. When people interact with real life through facebook, they only get to see what's profitable for the company. So yes, fb inherently destroys democracy. Not necessarily on purpose (that's conspiracy territory), but because well-informed people go against their business model.
briandear 10y ago
I don't necessarily agree with the comment to which you are replying however one concrete step is the newsfeed algorithm. As someone mentioned, Facebook becomes a bubble; I have a few hundred 'friends' of widely different politics and interests, yet my feed is populated with an echo chamber of my own inadvertent creation. I like stories I find interesting and agree with however that then results of me seeing more of the same so my feed now consists of probably a maximum of ten people's content, so the "inventory" of shareable content from my feed gets more and more focused to the point where there is no longer much diversity in my feed and thus the things I share. For example: I "like" Mises posts, I like my "real" friends's music posts and I like the occasional post from The Paris Review. However I follow a ton of people from interior design and architecture but I rarely see posts from those people/subjects. So my feed looks like a very narrow focus on Austrian economics and electronic music. My point: the content isn't the problem with Facebook, the problem is the feed algorithm that decides the content I see. I would prefer no algorithm at all: just show me everything my 'friends' are posting. If I get tired of someone, I unfollow them. Facebook has made a conscious decision to behave as a de facto curator of content. I get it, it's my own fault for "liking" things. But I am a relatively sophisticated user -- I am aware of the echo chamber I create; but for hundreds of millions of users the newsfeed is their 'news' and it isn't transparent how their past likes are creating this environment.

by grzm 10y ago

andrewvijay 10y ago

One concrete step would be to accept that they easily bring war/peace in any country they are allowed to operate. The moral responsibility of such a huge platform where people interact needs to be very high. Pointing fingers or giving sugar coated answers is not acceptable. Facebook's motto should be changed from 'connecting people' to 'connecting people to show only what they like'. See we both are arguing something here that is simply avoided so many times in facebook. That is the whole point. The tradeoff they should be allowing is to allow people to see/confront contradictions. Else its not a debate. Nobody gains knowledge or new thoughts. No one progresses apart from facebook.

zdkl 10y ago
So the bigger question as far as I've come to think of it: is a for profit company compatible with the role facebook is filling?
- grzm 10y ago
  And if it's not for profit, it will still need income. Where will that income come from?
  - andrewvijay 10y ago
    I simply dont know answers to all these questions!! And quite frankly their top executives have to be worried about that. Not us.
    - grzm 10y ago
      And they obviously are. Facebook has been trying to address these issues, and has made missteps on the way. They wouldn't have issued the statements they have if they weren't concerned about it. I'd be really surprised if they're happy with the current situation and are going to just stop working on it. Maybe they're not working fast enough or in the way you want them to. But it's helpful to recognize that they're human, too. The issues of free speech and privacy and business and how they inter-relate are not solved issues, and things that we've grappled with as societies for at least a couple hundred years. Coupled with the novelty of online communities, it's not something I expect them to figure out overnight. It's good that you admit that you don't have answers to these questions. I don't either. Which is why I'm very slow to make statements like Facebook simply kills democracy for their own benefit. It just doesn't recognize the reality of the situation as I understand it.
      - andrewvijay 10y ago
        > And they obviously are. Don't you think they are bit late in the US? :D >The issues of free speech and privacy and business and how they inter-relate are not solved issues, and things that we've grappled with as societies for at least a couple hundred years But this time its much more hurting than before because we know more now and shouldnt let bad things happen because of a company's business decisions.
        grzm 10y ago
        Obviously this is something you care about. I suggest you take some time, do some research, and spend some serious time thinking of concrete steps Facebook could take, and more importantly what you can do to help make the changes you want to see. At the end of the day, it's people that make changes. Expecting others to make those changes for you is likely to lead to more frustration for you. Be well, and good luck!
- sparkzilla 10y ago
  While it appears as though your question is framed to get the answer that a non-profit could do Facebook's task better, there are other options. The core question is: is a social network compatible with news? There are other for-profit models that can work. A simple variation is not to use algorithmic presentation of the news feed at all and allow users to select the news they want to see, and to show all the news about the topic in the feed. This method has its own issues. For example, I run a bunch of of newsfeeds about entrepreneurs, (Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos etc) on LinkedIn and fairly often I get people complaining that they don't want to see negative news about the entrepreneur -- they only want to see positive news. They describe themselves as fans. I tell them that the won't understand the subject if they don't expose themselves to news they don't like. But think about that on Facebook - this negative news does not get shared, and there's no proper way to say, "this is negative but interesting", the best you've got is the "angry" emoticon. And you only see what Facebook want you to see. They turned off the option to view your feed by most recent items, not because it was difficult to follow, but because it made more money for them. So there are ways to fix these issues, but the cost is that you lose some readers and you lose some money. But for those who remain the experience is better - they are getting informed, not entertained. In its entire life Facebook has always put greed before user experience, so there's no way any of this will change.
  - zdkl 10y ago
    > The core question is: is a social network compatible with news? I understand the value of this question but it's not the core of the problem as I understand. Consider the progression of facebook as a platform. I hope my lack of eloquence won't hurt my point too much, not a native english speaker. Facebook was a valuable service when keeping track of one's social circle was still an analogic problem. Since we the public saw the value in digitizing the 'book keeping' of socialisation, we invested time into the platform to constitute a social group, architected as we saw fit. This at least was the experience of the early days of facebook for me and people I know. I imagine you share it to some degree. Compare that function to what the same company is pushing now. Their business is still acquiring user's time but they now have pivoted enough that the social book keeping aspect is quite secondary to most of the business layer of the company as far as I can tell. I have no business analysing whether focusing on information diffusion control is a good strategy for Facebook the company, I have no idea. The point that concerns me is that the users are now chained along because of time invested in the past. We as users should insist on having the social book keeping available as a low level (open source/GPL/WTFPL) platform on top of which one could choose to enhance that experience as is the business of information outlets. I have no issue with companies choosing profit over UX, but we the public should protest in some form or other while we still more or less have a choice.
grzm 10y ago
Facebook's motto should be changed from 'connecting people' to 'connecting people to show only what they like'. Is this what you think Facebook should be? Or what you think is a more accurate description of what Facebook is? What would this look like in concrete steps? How do you manage bullying? Knowingly spreading misinformation and disinformation? What prevents Facebook from becoming one big flamewar? How do you decide how to confront contradictions? What about people who don't want to use Facebook for debate? It's all well and good to make statements like The tradeoff they should be allowing is to allow people to see/confront contradictions. Else its not a debate. Nobody gains knowledge or new thoughts. No one progresses apart from Facebook. It's another thing all together to put in place the features that make this possible. I challenge you to put forth some concrete features that would address the concerns you have.
- andrewvijay 10y ago
  >Is this what you think Facebook should be? It was a metaphor. >What would this look like in concrete steps? Taking social responsibility. I dont know the steps because I dont run that business only affected by it. >How do you manage bullying? >Knowingly spreading misinformation and disinformation? >What prevents Facebook from becoming one big flamewar? FB should be deciding on these. They can if they want to. >How do you decide how to confront contradictions? By letting people talk instead of hiding them from each other. >It's another thing all together to put in place the features that make this possible. Yeah of course and its big time they accepted they should.
  - saint_fiasco 10y ago
    Nobody is asking you to take the steps, just describe them. What steps would you take if you had all the resources at Facebook's disposal and it was your responsibility. Yes, I know it's not really your responsibility but it's all hypothetical.
    - EdHominem 10y ago
      Simple. Step back and let people listen to, and say, what they want. The police will undoubtedly come and arrest a few of them for what they say, but that's not your problem. Let the legal system handle the issues. The only thing making this a problem is Facebook's insistence on curating what you see so they can show you ads. They made this problem themselves and could solve it in an instant by stopping the interference.
greyman 10y ago
> connecting people to show only what they like But should Facebook decide what I should be shown for my own good? Because I mostly just really don't want to see what Facebook doesn't show me.

scalio 10y ago

> What tradeoffs are worthwhile that ensure an overall positive experience? And still be a profitable business? Facebook is a business, and real life is not always profitable. When people interact with real life through facebook, they only get to see what's profitable for the company. So yes, fb inherently destroys democracy. Not necessarily on purpose (that's conspiracy territory), but because well-informed people go against their business model.

briandear 10y ago

I don't necessarily agree with the comment to which you are replying however one concrete step is the newsfeed algorithm. As someone mentioned, Facebook becomes a bubble; I have a few hundred 'friends' of widely different politics and interests, yet my feed is populated with an echo chamber of my own inadvertent creation. I like stories I find interesting and agree with however that then results of me seeing more of the same so my feed now consists of probably a maximum of ten people's content, so the "inventory" of shareable content from my feed gets more and more focused to the point where there is no longer much diversity in my feed and thus the things I share. For example: I "like" Mises posts, I like my "real" friends's music posts and I like the occasional post from The Paris Review. However I follow a ton of people from interior design and architecture but I rarely see posts from those people/subjects. So my feed looks like a very narrow focus on Austrian economics and electronic music. My point: the content isn't the problem with Facebook, the problem is the feed algorithm that decides the content I see. I would prefer no algorithm at all: just show me everything my 'friends' are posting. If I get tired of someone, I unfollow them. Facebook has made a conscious decision to behave as a de facto curator of content. I get it, it's my own fault for "liking" things. But I am a relatively sophisticated user -- I am aware of the echo chamber I create; but for hundreds of millions of users the newsfeed is their 'news' and it isn't transparent how their past likes are creating this environment.