36 ms·

Facebook is already making these decisions today with the algorithmic feed. They're already stepping in and deciding what people should see and what people shou

by creato 8y ago

Facebook is already making these decisions today with the algorithmic feed. They're already stepping in and deciding what people should see and what people should not see. It's stupid to pretend that the status quo is some hands-off natural state of the world, and get upset at the suggestion that the way this is already being done should change.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
threatofrain 8y ago
If you can't trust people to understand that Facebook promoting the post of a peer in your network, which you curated, isn't as popular as you think it is (Facebook doesn't generate content; the people you accept do)... What does that say about what we think of their judgment capabilities, and whether they can take on a more serious democratic challenge like a policy debate on Brexit, or the Californian initiative process? I view the judgment necessary for Brexit or other public policy as more than a magnitude harder than judging whether peers or posts in your network are as popular as Facebook wants you to think. Your response again makes me ask whether we have esteem for the clarity of our peers. Is there even faith that people can manage their own click?
- creato 8y ago
  It's hard to argue against this point without looking like an asshole. But no, I have little faith that many people (including at least one family member) can handle the firehose of bullshit from facebook. I have one family member that was always anti-vaccine, but it was not really an issue until she got on facebook. The degree of radicalization she has now reached is intense, and I pretty directly blame facebook for this. Her sub-network of friends that post about this regularly did not exist before facebook. There are many firehoses of bullshit, but facebook is a singular example that has connected enough people to it via people they already trust that it seems to be having a real impact on the world's decision making abilities.

by creato 8y ago

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

threatofrain 8y ago

If you can't trust people to understand that Facebook promoting the post of a peer in your network, which you curated, isn't as popular as you think it is (Facebook doesn't generate content; the people you accept do)... What does that say about what we think of their judgment capabilities, and whether they can take on a more serious democratic challenge like a policy debate on Brexit, or the Californian initiative process? I view the judgment necessary for Brexit or other public policy as more than a magnitude harder than judging whether peers or posts in your network are as popular as Facebook wants you to think. Your response again makes me ask whether we have esteem for the clarity of our peers. Is there even faith that people can manage their own click?

creato 8y ago
It's hard to argue against this point without looking like an asshole. But no, I have little faith that many people (including at least one family member) can handle the firehose of bullshit from facebook. I have one family member that was always anti-vaccine, but it was not really an issue until she got on facebook. The degree of radicalization she has now reached is intense, and I pretty directly blame facebook for this. Her sub-network of friends that post about this regularly did not exist before facebook. There are many firehoses of bullshit, but facebook is a singular example that has connected enough people to it via people they already trust that it seems to be having a real impact on the world's decision making abilities.