4 ms·

> Last year, we worked to better understand what kind of news people want to see on Facebook. This opening line is just all wrong. News isn't about 'what you w

> Last year, we worked to better understand what kind of news people want to see on Facebook. This opening line is just all wrong. News isn't about 'what you want to see', writing news to garner clicks is basically another way of saying 'our news reporting is fundamentally biased'. Real journalism isn't entertainment. But, I get it, real journalism doesn't sell, people don't have time to understand world problems, don't care much about corruption unless it's dramatic, don't care about plain boring facts. Facebook understands that in order to own a market they have to spoon-feed it what it wants. Curate an audience of idle minds and feed them what they measurably want. This play to 'local news' is simply a tool to advance their own agenda, they want to own local news and help you feel that FB is all warm and 'local' to your needs. Your 'local' world-view, sponsored by Facebook. It's kind of sick really.

jdironman 8y ago
Disclaimer: I am not affiliated with nor endorse Facebook. I actually deleted mine for 6 months before making a new one to keep in touch with friends. But, I will not knock a company for wanting to maximize profits. They want their users to want to use their platform. If I owned a social media, or any product really, I would want to do everything I can to keep them coming back. I feel like as long as it isn't illegal, and done with best practices (ethically and morally) then that is what a free market is about. Should a competitor arise and do it better then That would be fantastic! Markets thrive through competition and freedom of choice. But as it stands there is not a whole lot of competition state side. I don't agree with a lot that Facebook, or Mark, does. But I have respect for them from strictly a business point of view for staying above water as long as they have. I just wish there was a viable competitor.
- thanatropism 8y ago
  There are many compelling arguments that Facebook is addictive. I remember feeling physically ill, as if struck by the flu, the first day I quit facebook. (You might argue with Milton Friedman, that the free market should be allowed to provide addictive goods. This may well be true, but there's no D.A.R.E for social media; there are also very few non-social media users you might compare with social media users for reference, as you might for potheads and cokeheads.)
- jrumbut 8y ago
  That's exactly what the parent is saying, that few of Facebook's actions have been done with best practices (ethically or morally). No reason to cheer on a company to profits at the expense of the society that made that company possible and you have to live in, then they have no incentive at all to do the right thing.
- kakarot 8y ago
  > I will not knock a company for wanting to maximize profits. This statement only exists in a vacuum. The only way you can truthfully make this claim is if you can put absolutely anything inside the blank in the following sentence: "I will not knock a company for wanting to maximize profits, even if they ______" > If I owned a social media, or any product really, I would want to do everything I can to keep them coming back. Again, you should be able to place absolutely anything in the blanks here and still believe in your statement: "I would want to do everything I can to keep them coming back, even _______" > I feel like as long as it isn't illegal Slavery was legal for a very long time, and had its own "best practices". > Should a competitor arise and do it better then That would be fantastic! Yes, what this world needs is a cutthroat surveillance complex even more smart and ruthless than Facebook. > But I have respect for them from strictly a business point of view for staying above water as long as they have. Facebook hasn't even been around for two decades. My grandmother's small business has been around longer than that, and she doesn't have a board of advisors. > I just wish there was a viable competitor. This entire argument feels like a strawman. No one is saying Facebook needs a competitor. People are saying Facebook is too powerful. Any viable competitor would thus also be too powerful.
  - jdironman 8y ago
    > I never said 'even if they ______'. That's kind of a stretch of what I originally meant. What I had in mind when I said that I guess was imagining someone running flyers or business cards around town advertising their startup. Stuff that does not manipulate, put at risk, harm, or exploit the user. I do believe a line should be drawn regarding the reach of any company. It was why I left Facebook in the first place, because yes I considered them too powerful. Not only technology wise but playing a too powerful role in my own personal life. But then I figured the 20+ years I have already spent on the internet has already garnered a healthy data profile on me and just dropping the one service wasn't going to dent that too much. So I came back to keep in contact while now minimizing my time spent on there. When I mention competitors I am thinking of a company that closely provides a lot of the same functionality as Facebook but without the censoring, surveillance, exploiting of its users. But, even if one existed the only way that would work is if people moved to it. I think it is entirely possible for that to happen. But like you said, who is to say down the road they won't take the same turn that Facebook did? Its a risk that will always exist on these type of services. One thing remains is that there will always be a demand for socializing / connectivity. Comparing Facebook to slavery is a bit of a stretch. I think we as a people now have a better understanding of our inherent rights and where boundaries should be. The problem lies in the fact that a majority of the people do not care or acknowledge being the product of a company. I'm not sure what else to say other than I believe that everyone and every business should have a market that they can succeed in. You're grandmother probably does so because she treats people right. Makes them feel welcome and listens to their concerns and requests in whatever it is that she does. The same should go for larger corporations. They should listen to their users feedback and provide them with what they are wanting. Whether or not these things should even exist is not an argument I am qualified to explore.
- pavel_lishin 8y ago
  > I will not knock a company for wanting to maximize profits. I won't knock a tiger for wanting to eat meat, but I'm also not going to nod along sagely as it stalks me through the underbrush without at least complaining about it.
- zjaffee 8y ago
  Except this is exactly why a society entirely planned around markets is bad, markets left alone would only result in every social ill being magnified as any given addictive and harmful substance would become cheaper to produce and further marketed towards us. Facebook playing algorithmic mind games with people of all ages to keep them hooked with the goal of maximizing profits is no different than cigarette companies marketing to children with the goal of maximizing profits.
barkingcat 8y ago
"what kind of news people want to see" discussions takes place in news rooms, editing rooms, and journalism schools around the world. There isn't some all-encompassing "journalism" cabal who are only dedicated to reporting all the news that ever happens without bias. This only exists in the minds of people who've never seen news and reporting get made. These decisions are made every day by the editors-in-chief and publishers of large multinational news conglomerates, and this ultimately makes these positions very powerful. It's why Rupert Murdoch owns so many news/media properties and why people say the Fox news network is biased.
- monkeynotes 8y ago
  I think we all know the discussions going on at FB HQ about 'what people want to see' are far, far removed from the journalistic decisions that get made in a quality news room. Throwing in Murdoch and Fox News isn't helping your argument either. I'd put Murdoch up there as one of the key people who have actively sought to abuse journalism for political favour and personal gain. I just don't see how that is right.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- sandworm101 8y ago
  Proper news sources don't sell the news. They sell trust, my trust in them. BBC.co.uk/news isn't my first bookmark on every device because they entertain me. It is there because I trust that anything appearing on that website has been deemed important by a group of professionals. I don't want to read popular news. I certainly do not trust Facebook/Google/Apple to curate anything beyond funny cat vids. BBC does include the occasional fun story of little real news value (ie the pet raccoon who got into the pot brownies) but this liberty is taken seriously. It never detracts from the real news articles.
  - RGamma 8y ago
    Well, proper news sources should be something like regulated public "utilities" (assuming sane democratic/journalistic standards). It's the same for me with tagesschau.de and Deutschlandfunk.
dqpb 8y ago
So who decides what's news worthy?
- monkeynotes 8y ago
  Well, currently ad dollars.
- ticmasta 8y ago
  Isn't this the fundamental question? Who do you want to decide what is news worthy for you?
darawk 8y ago
> This opening line is just all wrong. News isn't about 'what you want to see', writing news to garner clicks is basically another way of saying 'our news reporting is fundamentally biased'. There are multiple meanings of the word 'want'. There is 'want' in the sense of what people will click on, which we have learned is not always good. But that doesn't mean that what people say that they want is similarly toxic. For instance, if you ask me what i'd like to have for lunch today, i'll say "a nice healthy salad". But if you put a delicious burrito in front of me, I will eat that burrito instead. Does that mean I didn't want the salad? No. It means that preference is not a unitary thing. Assuming that Facebook investigated the question of "what do our users want" with this nuanced understanding of preference, and interrogated their users "higher wants" (articulated preference) rather than their "lower wants" (revealed preference), I think that line is ok.
- monkeynotes 8y ago
  I believe FB would give you whatever you are most likely to click (the cheese filled burrito), to think that FB has any integrity beyond that feels naive in the face of their investor's interests. FaceBook makes money from advertising, whatever it takes to get you to stick around and look at ads is going to be the 'news' they are most motivated to present. Do we have any other reason to believe otherwise?
  - darawk 8y ago
    That depends on what you think their investors interests are. Facebook is losing a lot of social capital by pursuing the path that it has. I am an investor in Facebook (not one that matters, just have a few shares), and I, out of pure self interest, want them to reform themselves in this regard. Yes, there is a path to short term profits that aggressively exploits clickbait. However, as is becoming apparent, that path is going to lead to heavy handed regulation and/or a mass exodus from their platforms. Either of those things would be disastrous for future profits, so I don't think, even from a purely self-interested perspective, that it's true that they don't want to solve this problem.
chillacy 8y ago
What is news about then? Is it just what you think is important? And what if I disagree, how will we know who's right?
ynx 8y ago
I get what you're saying but this kind of capture already happened with Sinclair, and it's mind-boggling how awful it can be at times. I think any kind of competition would move the needle closer to fairness rather than away from it.
nanoseltzer 8y ago
Honestly at this point, anything they do is just a ploy to advance some kind of hidden agenda even more so than any other corporation. Their name in my trust bank is pretty bankrupt.

jdironman 8y ago

Disclaimer: I am not affiliated with nor endorse Facebook. I actually deleted mine for 6 months before making a new one to keep in touch with friends. But, I will not knock a company for wanting to maximize profits. They want their users to want to use their platform. If I owned a social media, or any product really, I would want to do everything I can to keep them coming back. I feel like as long as it isn't illegal, and done with best practices (ethically and morally) then that is what a free market is about. Should a competitor arise and do it better then That would be fantastic! Markets thrive through competition and freedom of choice. But as it stands there is not a whole lot of competition state side. I don't agree with a lot that Facebook, or Mark, does. But I have respect for them from strictly a business point of view for staying above water as long as they have. I just wish there was a viable competitor.

thanatropism 8y ago
There are many compelling arguments that Facebook is addictive. I remember feeling physically ill, as if struck by the flu, the first day I quit facebook. (You might argue with Milton Friedman, that the free market should be allowed to provide addictive goods. This may well be true, but there's no D.A.R.E for social media; there are also very few non-social media users you might compare with social media users for reference, as you might for potheads and cokeheads.)
jrumbut 8y ago
That's exactly what the parent is saying, that few of Facebook's actions have been done with best practices (ethically or morally). No reason to cheer on a company to profits at the expense of the society that made that company possible and you have to live in, then they have no incentive at all to do the right thing.
kakarot 8y ago
> I will not knock a company for wanting to maximize profits. This statement only exists in a vacuum. The only way you can truthfully make this claim is if you can put absolutely anything inside the blank in the following sentence: "I will not knock a company for wanting to maximize profits, even if they ______" > If I owned a social media, or any product really, I would want to do everything I can to keep them coming back. Again, you should be able to place absolutely anything in the blanks here and still believe in your statement: "I would want to do everything I can to keep them coming back, even _______" > I feel like as long as it isn't illegal Slavery was legal for a very long time, and had its own "best practices". > Should a competitor arise and do it better then That would be fantastic! Yes, what this world needs is a cutthroat surveillance complex even more smart and ruthless than Facebook. > But I have respect for them from strictly a business point of view for staying above water as long as they have. Facebook hasn't even been around for two decades. My grandmother's small business has been around longer than that, and she doesn't have a board of advisors. > I just wish there was a viable competitor. This entire argument feels like a strawman. No one is saying Facebook needs a competitor. People are saying Facebook is too powerful. Any viable competitor would thus also be too powerful.
- jdironman 8y ago
  > I never said 'even if they ______'. That's kind of a stretch of what I originally meant. What I had in mind when I said that I guess was imagining someone running flyers or business cards around town advertising their startup. Stuff that does not manipulate, put at risk, harm, or exploit the user. I do believe a line should be drawn regarding the reach of any company. It was why I left Facebook in the first place, because yes I considered them too powerful. Not only technology wise but playing a too powerful role in my own personal life. But then I figured the 20+ years I have already spent on the internet has already garnered a healthy data profile on me and just dropping the one service wasn't going to dent that too much. So I came back to keep in contact while now minimizing my time spent on there. When I mention competitors I am thinking of a company that closely provides a lot of the same functionality as Facebook but without the censoring, surveillance, exploiting of its users. But, even if one existed the only way that would work is if people moved to it. I think it is entirely possible for that to happen. But like you said, who is to say down the road they won't take the same turn that Facebook did? Its a risk that will always exist on these type of services. One thing remains is that there will always be a demand for socializing / connectivity. Comparing Facebook to slavery is a bit of a stretch. I think we as a people now have a better understanding of our inherent rights and where boundaries should be. The problem lies in the fact that a majority of the people do not care or acknowledge being the product of a company. I'm not sure what else to say other than I believe that everyone and every business should have a market that they can succeed in. You're grandmother probably does so because she treats people right. Makes them feel welcome and listens to their concerns and requests in whatever it is that she does. The same should go for larger corporations. They should listen to their users feedback and provide them with what they are wanting. Whether or not these things should even exist is not an argument I am qualified to explore.
pavel_lishin 8y ago
> I will not knock a company for wanting to maximize profits. I won't knock a tiger for wanting to eat meat, but I'm also not going to nod along sagely as it stalks me through the underbrush without at least complaining about it.
zjaffee 8y ago
Except this is exactly why a society entirely planned around markets is bad, markets left alone would only result in every social ill being magnified as any given addictive and harmful substance would become cheaper to produce and further marketed towards us. Facebook playing algorithmic mind games with people of all ages to keep them hooked with the goal of maximizing profits is no different than cigarette companies marketing to children with the goal of maximizing profits.

barkingcat 8y ago

"what kind of news people want to see" discussions takes place in news rooms, editing rooms, and journalism schools around the world. There isn't some all-encompassing "journalism" cabal who are only dedicated to reporting all the news that ever happens without bias. This only exists in the minds of people who've never seen news and reporting get made. These decisions are made every day by the editors-in-chief and publishers of large multinational news conglomerates, and this ultimately makes these positions very powerful. It's why Rupert Murdoch owns so many news/media properties and why people say the Fox news network is biased.

monkeynotes 8y ago
I think we all know the discussions going on at FB HQ about 'what people want to see' are far, far removed from the journalistic decisions that get made in a quality news room. Throwing in Murdoch and Fox News isn't helping your argument either. I'd put Murdoch up there as one of the key people who have actively sought to abuse journalism for political favour and personal gain. I just don't see how that is right.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
sandworm101 8y ago
Proper news sources don't sell the news. They sell trust, my trust in them. BBC.co.uk/news isn't my first bookmark on every device because they entertain me. It is there because I trust that anything appearing on that website has been deemed important by a group of professionals. I don't want to read popular news. I certainly do not trust Facebook/Google/Apple to curate anything beyond funny cat vids. BBC does include the occasional fun story of little real news value (ie the pet raccoon who got into the pot brownies) but this liberty is taken seriously. It never detracts from the real news articles.
- RGamma 8y ago
  Well, proper news sources should be something like regulated public "utilities" (assuming sane democratic/journalistic standards). It's the same for me with tagesschau.de and Deutschlandfunk.

dqpb 8y ago

So who decides what's news worthy?

monkeynotes 8y ago
Well, currently ad dollars.
ticmasta 8y ago
Isn't this the fundamental question? Who do you want to decide what is news worthy for you?

darawk 8y ago

> This opening line is just all wrong. News isn't about 'what you want to see', writing news to garner clicks is basically another way of saying 'our news reporting is fundamentally biased'. There are multiple meanings of the word 'want'. There is 'want' in the sense of what people will click on, which we have learned is not always good. But that doesn't mean that what people say that they want is similarly toxic. For instance, if you ask me what i'd like to have for lunch today, i'll say "a nice healthy salad". But if you put a delicious burrito in front of me, I will eat that burrito instead. Does that mean I didn't want the salad? No. It means that preference is not a unitary thing. Assuming that Facebook investigated the question of "what do our users want" with this nuanced understanding of preference, and interrogated their users "higher wants" (articulated preference) rather than their "lower wants" (revealed preference), I think that line is ok.

monkeynotes 8y ago
I believe FB would give you whatever you are most likely to click (the cheese filled burrito), to think that FB has any integrity beyond that feels naive in the face of their investor's interests. FaceBook makes money from advertising, whatever it takes to get you to stick around and look at ads is going to be the 'news' they are most motivated to present. Do we have any other reason to believe otherwise?
- darawk 8y ago
  That depends on what you think their investors interests are. Facebook is losing a lot of social capital by pursuing the path that it has. I am an investor in Facebook (not one that matters, just have a few shares), and I, out of pure self interest, want them to reform themselves in this regard. Yes, there is a path to short term profits that aggressively exploits clickbait. However, as is becoming apparent, that path is going to lead to heavy handed regulation and/or a mass exodus from their platforms. Either of those things would be disastrous for future profits, so I don't think, even from a purely self-interested perspective, that it's true that they don't want to solve this problem.

chillacy 8y ago

What is news about then? Is it just what you think is important? And what if I disagree, how will we know who's right?

ynx 8y ago

I get what you're saying but this kind of capture already happened with Sinclair, and it's mind-boggling how awful it can be at times. I think any kind of competition would move the needle closer to fairness rather than away from it.

nanoseltzer 8y ago

Honestly at this point, anything they do is just a ploy to advance some kind of hidden agenda even more so than any other corporation. Their name in my trust bank is pretty bankrupt.