4 ms·

Didn't read the article, but i believe the threat to democracy is largely because Facebook is a centralized platform. They have an enormous amount of power beca

Didn't read the article, but i believe the threat to democracy is largely because Facebook is a centralized platform. They have an enormous amount of power because they can directly influence the type of information their users consume. They essentially have control of a 1b+ herd....

jk2323 9y ago
In regards to social media and fake news, I am thinking more and more about a talk that Professor Peter Kruse gave three years ago about the tendency of such systems for hysteresis effects. If you understand German you can watch it here (6 min). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSEEDB7ViyQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSEEDB7ViyQ ("Und bist Du nicht willig, so brauch ich ....Geduld".. :-)
untog 9y ago
While that's true, I don't think it's the core of it. As people, we like to be right. So we're drawn towards people who tell us we are right. Social media lets that take over our lives entirely - we can now live happily without ever hearing an opinion we disagree with. My neighbour and I might live one door from each other yet occupy totally different echo chambers. I think you see this in the way people view Trump, Brexit and the like. No one's preconceptions are challenged any more.
- slavik81 9y ago
  I find that social media has the exact opposite problem. There's enough politically incindiary material on there that reading Facebook or Twitter frequently leaves me angry. The friends and co-workers I spend time with in person have a much less diverse set of views than the broader group in my Twitter and Facebook feeds. Literally every person I spend real-world time with is wealthy, educated and liberal. Nobody ever says anything truly upsetting.
  - cynusx 9y ago
    I actually don't get why facebook doesn't bury political posts in your feed. People are not going to be more "connected" when arguing about politics online. From an AI point of view it's much simpler to detect if a post is political in nature
    - krrrh 9y ago
      It seems like they are just optimizing for “engagement”, and that outraged codes as egaged based on the metrics they collect.
dogruck 9y ago
I haven’t seen any proof that FB actually has power. Instead, I’m seeing that they have inflated the number of users and ad impressions. Also, I’m seeing an argument that FB is somehow so powerful, that under $100k of FB ads swung the election (even though the campaigns bought 10s of millions of FB ads too).
- krrrh 9y ago
  I find the focus on $100k in ads frustrating. There is evidence that Russian intelligence also created groups, with hundreds of thousands of members, which pushed shamelessly extreme viewpoints. It seems like this effort in addition to paid commenters and bots would dwarf the effect of the limited amount of advtertising that has been reported.
  - moltar 9y ago
    I don’t know how much you know about Facebook marketing, but organic reach from pages is non existent. Facebook pushed for paid ads a long time ago. You’d be lucky to get just 5% of your followers to even see your free posts, not to mention to engage or act on.

jk2323 9y ago

In regards to social media and fake news, I am thinking more and more about a talk that Professor Peter Kruse gave three years ago about the tendency of such systems for hysteresis effects. If you understand German you can watch it here (6 min). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSEEDB7ViyQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSEEDB7ViyQ ("Und bist Du nicht willig, so brauch ich ....Geduld".. :-)

untog 9y ago

While that's true, I don't think it's the core of it. As people, we like to be right. So we're drawn towards people who tell us we are right. Social media lets that take over our lives entirely - we can now live happily without ever hearing an opinion we disagree with. My neighbour and I might live one door from each other yet occupy totally different echo chambers. I think you see this in the way people view Trump, Brexit and the like. No one's preconceptions are challenged any more.

slavik81 9y ago
I find that social media has the exact opposite problem. There's enough politically incindiary material on there that reading Facebook or Twitter frequently leaves me angry. The friends and co-workers I spend time with in person have a much less diverse set of views than the broader group in my Twitter and Facebook feeds. Literally every person I spend real-world time with is wealthy, educated and liberal. Nobody ever says anything truly upsetting.
- cynusx 9y ago
  I actually don't get why facebook doesn't bury political posts in your feed. People are not going to be more "connected" when arguing about politics online. From an AI point of view it's much simpler to detect if a post is political in nature
  - krrrh 9y ago
    It seems like they are just optimizing for “engagement”, and that outraged codes as egaged based on the metrics they collect.

dogruck 9y ago

I haven’t seen any proof that FB actually has power. Instead, I’m seeing that they have inflated the number of users and ad impressions. Also, I’m seeing an argument that FB is somehow so powerful, that under $100k of FB ads swung the election (even though the campaigns bought 10s of millions of FB ads too).

krrrh 9y ago
I find the focus on $100k in ads frustrating. There is evidence that Russian intelligence also created groups, with hundreds of thousands of members, which pushed shamelessly extreme viewpoints. It seems like this effort in addition to paid commenters and bots would dwarf the effect of the limited amount of advtertising that has been reported.
- moltar 9y ago
  I don’t know how much you know about Facebook marketing, but organic reach from pages is non existent. Facebook pushed for paid ads a long time ago. You’d be lucky to get just 5% of your followers to even see your free posts, not to mention to engage or act on.