6 ms·

That's a little disingenous. No doubt you are correct that 99.9% of the user-generated content is benign, but that 99.9% of user-generated content would likely

by bshipp 8y ago

That's a little disingenous. No doubt you are correct that 99.9% of the user-generated content is benign, but that 99.9% of user-generated content would likely not represent 99.9% of viewer traffic. If only 0.01% of toxic content by terms of volume is receiving disproportionate attention and focus, not only permissible but actively encouraged by complex opaque algorithms, then it is certainly a much bigger problem then it's meagre character count would otherwise suggest.

ptero 8y ago
> If only 0.01% of toxic content ... is receiving disproportionate attention and focus, not only permissible but actively encouraged by complex opaque algorithms, then it is certainly a much bigger problem To me, this needs to be split into two use cases. The fact that .01% of content gets viewed a lot more than average is not a bad thing. Much of user content is junk with a heavy dose of ads for a seasoning. It is perfectly reasonable that original or thoughtful posts, even if unpleasant or provocative, get much higher traffic. The problem is the algorithmic reinforcement that encourages those making short-term sensationalist statements. Let's still allow folks to voice their opinions, whichever they are, and advertise them by the digital age equivalents to "word of mouth". Just keep it human, not algorithm driven. My 2c.
- bshipp 8y ago
  I agree, that's a very useful and necessary distinction that I neglected to include in my original comment. Without those spontaneous user-composed opinions and anecdotes, the platform would quickly become (or perhaps already has become) plastic and artificial. As anyone having to relate information through a bureaucratic communications department has certainly experienced, even the most unique, interesting and useful story in the world stands little chance against an eager team of copy editors and PR representatives.
- jtbayly 8y ago
  I don't think that solves anything. "Human driven" is precisely what forwarded messages on WhatsApp are. FB is feeling the need to limit the number of people you can forward something to in order to solve the same problem you're attempting to solve. My presumption is that by far the single biggest signal on whether to display a post on the FB feed to more people is how many people like and share. That's a people problem at the core, not an algorithm problem.
  - CharlesColeman 8y ago
    > My presumption is that by far the single biggest signal on whether to display a post on the FB feed to more people is how many people like and share. That's a people problem at the core, not an algorithm problem. It's still an algorithm problem at its core, because the algorithm is what determines what the "single biggest signal" it will use for amplification is. There's no reason why maximum shareability should be the main factor, it could be something else like some proxy for erudition, for instance.
    - intended 8y ago
      There’s no proxy for content quality. Simply: it’s all content and it’s impact depends on the people who take the information in and then apply their beliefs and understanding to it. Some content is simple - recipes for example. Others are impossible to parse: “they want to reduce hate speech” translates as “they want to remove conservative/right wing speech” (this actually happened in a conversation yesterday. Suggesting that the term hate speech is being transformed/co opted) Engagement in contrast, is simple, reliable and measurable.
      - CharlesColeman 8y ago
        > There’s no proxy for content quality. I don't think that's true, it's just that the proxies are imperfect. But the specific alternative metric wasn't that important to my point. > Engagement in contrast, is simple, reliable and measurable. That's the root of the problem: the algorithms have been designed to use "simple, reliable, and [easily] measurable" things as their whole input, and then narrowly A/B tested to maximize some other easily measurable output. Looked at holistically, it's too simple to do an acceptable job. If you took a similar attitude, and applied it to create an algorithm for another discipline, like medicine for instance, it'd be pretty clear it'd be a disaster.
    - jtbayly 8y ago
      Even if I accept your claim, the parent was suggesting getting rid of the algorithm and just letting it be human driven. Human driven means most shared is what gets most seen. How is that different than the current algorithm? It doesn’t change anything. That’s my point. However, this shows that the root problem really is human. You can tell because you are suggesting designing an algorithm to fix a pre-existing problem. Without algorithms of any sort, this problem is there. I don’t think it can be solved by algorithm.
- Traster 8y ago
  I'm sorry but let's not dress this up. The content with high engagement in facebook is almost exclusively lowest common denominator crap. It's not quotes kant and satre - it's quotes from LadBible and Kim K. I think we can all agree that quantity isn't the right metric for this - whether that's number of posts or amount of traffic on a given post. What we're really trying to do is gauge what the conversation is. Having said that, there are clear distinguishable problems we can point to that have an interesting quantifier. Anonymous 'Campaign' groups run by individuals that have previously been associated with Brexit campaigning are currently spending millions on Brexit advertising. There is no indication of where the money comes from to pay for these (we know it's not from the people who are associated with the page because they're just staffers). In that way I agree with you - the thing to worry about is where the ad dollars are spent, but I don't think that's the only thing we should be worrying about.
  - panarky 8y ago
    Sturgeon's Law states that 90% of everything is crap [0]. The 1% Rule says that in any online community, 1% of participants create content while 99% lurk [1]. I'll propose Panarky's Corollary that 90% of the crap is produced by 0.1% of the participants and then shared, liked and amplified by 90% of participants. These 0.1% pathological participants are corporations advertising, governments propagandizing, zealots proselytizing, and trolls antagonizing. Facebook can see these patterns better than anyone, and they could eliminate or de-rank the material from the 0.1% if they wanted to. But the 0.1% is disproportionately incendiary and therefore profitable, so Facebook has a very strong incentive to look the other way. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_law [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1%25_rule_(Internet_culture) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1%25_rule_(Internet_culture)
learnstats2 8y ago
> No doubt you are correct that 99.9% That's not my starting assumption. I think Facebook has a problem that its typical so-called "benign" users are creating less and less content, while malignant content-makers are not discouraged.
- angott 8y ago
  They acquired Instagram and keep acquiring small startups exactly for this reason. Content generation direct to FB is going down because the platform is not innovating anymore, and for now their only way out of it is through acquisitions.
ryandrake 8y ago
This is a case of “What you permit, you promote.” People focus on the 0.01% of a platform’s content that’s bad/toxic because that is what defines where the platform draws the line on what’s acceptable.
- GreenJelloShot 8y ago
  Isn't "What you permit, you promote" literally intolerance? The whole point of tolerance is to say "I don't agree with that, but I respect your right to do your own thing." This is advocating the exact opposite. Under this philosophy I can not longer be tolerant, because anything I "permit" I will be accused of promoting. This seems like a recipe for a horrible, horrible world.
stickfigure 8y ago
I'm puzzled why Facebook is getting the blame here. If you are seeing toxic content in your feed, it's because your friends put it there. It's not Facebook's fault that your friends suck.
- nym 8y ago
  Maybe it's that facebook encourages the content from your friends that is toxic, because that toxic content leads to more clicks, engagement, and ultimately revenue.
- angott 8y ago
  Yes, but your friends share content that sucks because the Facebook algorithm fills their feeds with click-bait, with the sole purpose of increasing engagement and user retention metrics.
- pawelk 8y ago
  > If you are seeing toxic content in your feed, it's because your friends put it there. Not really. Facebook put it there for me. Time and again it shows me items like "[Friend] replied to a comment on [toxic thing]", where the thing gets a prominent preview etc. I haven't seen a real update from [Friend] in my feed for months, yet there are plenty when I visit their profile. Even if the friend is fighting the good fight and has commented to correct some misconceptions, it's clear that this particular action was selected for my feed because it's related to a controversial item.
- smt88 8y ago
  No. The most toxic content is often comments, which are shown to me even when I don't want to see them. If it weren't for comments from non-friends, Facebook would have no toxic content for me at all.
  - gscott 8y ago
    If you go to the persons profile and click unfollow then you won't see their comments on posts that are now yours.
taneq 8y ago
> If only 0.01% of toxic content by terms of volume is receiving disproportionate attention and focus You mean like the rumour-mongering, low-effort politics etc. in your standard tabloid?
colllectorof 8y ago
Not to mention that it's entirely possible to create very bad effects via benign content. Facebook (and other social media) use has been linked to a significant rise in depression. https://www.thisisinsider.com/social-media-link-depression-loneliness-2018-11 https://www.thisisinsider.com/social-media-link-depression-l... https://www.cbsnews.com/news/rise-in-suicide-and-social-media-is-there-a-link/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/rise-in-suicide-and-social-medi...

by bshipp 8y ago

ptero 8y ago

> If only 0.01% of toxic content ... is receiving disproportionate attention and focus, not only permissible but actively encouraged by complex opaque algorithms, then it is certainly a much bigger problem To me, this needs to be split into two use cases. The fact that .01% of content gets viewed a lot more than average is not a bad thing. Much of user content is junk with a heavy dose of ads for a seasoning. It is perfectly reasonable that original or thoughtful posts, even if unpleasant or provocative, get much higher traffic. The problem is the algorithmic reinforcement that encourages those making short-term sensationalist statements. Let's still allow folks to voice their opinions, whichever they are, and advertise them by the digital age equivalents to "word of mouth". Just keep it human, not algorithm driven. My 2c.

bshipp 8y ago
I agree, that's a very useful and necessary distinction that I neglected to include in my original comment. Without those spontaneous user-composed opinions and anecdotes, the platform would quickly become (or perhaps already has become) plastic and artificial. As anyone having to relate information through a bureaucratic communications department has certainly experienced, even the most unique, interesting and useful story in the world stands little chance against an eager team of copy editors and PR representatives.
jtbayly 8y ago
I don't think that solves anything. "Human driven" is precisely what forwarded messages on WhatsApp are. FB is feeling the need to limit the number of people you can forward something to in order to solve the same problem you're attempting to solve. My presumption is that by far the single biggest signal on whether to display a post on the FB feed to more people is how many people like and share. That's a people problem at the core, not an algorithm problem.
- CharlesColeman 8y ago
  > My presumption is that by far the single biggest signal on whether to display a post on the FB feed to more people is how many people like and share. That's a people problem at the core, not an algorithm problem. It's still an algorithm problem at its core, because the algorithm is what determines what the "single biggest signal" it will use for amplification is. There's no reason why maximum shareability should be the main factor, it could be something else like some proxy for erudition, for instance.
  - intended 8y ago
    There’s no proxy for content quality. Simply: it’s all content and it’s impact depends on the people who take the information in and then apply their beliefs and understanding to it. Some content is simple - recipes for example. Others are impossible to parse: “they want to reduce hate speech” translates as “they want to remove conservative/right wing speech” (this actually happened in a conversation yesterday. Suggesting that the term hate speech is being transformed/co opted) Engagement in contrast, is simple, reliable and measurable.
    - CharlesColeman 8y ago
      > There’s no proxy for content quality. I don't think that's true, it's just that the proxies are imperfect. But the specific alternative metric wasn't that important to my point. > Engagement in contrast, is simple, reliable and measurable. That's the root of the problem: the algorithms have been designed to use "simple, reliable, and [easily] measurable" things as their whole input, and then narrowly A/B tested to maximize some other easily measurable output. Looked at holistically, it's too simple to do an acceptable job. If you took a similar attitude, and applied it to create an algorithm for another discipline, like medicine for instance, it'd be pretty clear it'd be a disaster.
  - jtbayly 8y ago
    Even if I accept your claim, the parent was suggesting getting rid of the algorithm and just letting it be human driven. Human driven means most shared is what gets most seen. How is that different than the current algorithm? It doesn’t change anything. That’s my point. However, this shows that the root problem really is human. You can tell because you are suggesting designing an algorithm to fix a pre-existing problem. Without algorithms of any sort, this problem is there. I don’t think it can be solved by algorithm.
Traster 8y ago
I'm sorry but let's not dress this up. The content with high engagement in facebook is almost exclusively lowest common denominator crap. It's not quotes kant and satre - it's quotes from LadBible and Kim K. I think we can all agree that quantity isn't the right metric for this - whether that's number of posts or amount of traffic on a given post. What we're really trying to do is gauge what the conversation is. Having said that, there are clear distinguishable problems we can point to that have an interesting quantifier. Anonymous 'Campaign' groups run by individuals that have previously been associated with Brexit campaigning are currently spending millions on Brexit advertising. There is no indication of where the money comes from to pay for these (we know it's not from the people who are associated with the page because they're just staffers). In that way I agree with you - the thing to worry about is where the ad dollars are spent, but I don't think that's the only thing we should be worrying about.
- panarky 8y ago
  Sturgeon's Law states that 90% of everything is crap [0]. The 1% Rule says that in any online community, 1% of participants create content while 99% lurk [1]. I'll propose Panarky's Corollary that 90% of the crap is produced by 0.1% of the participants and then shared, liked and amplified by 90% of participants. These 0.1% pathological participants are corporations advertising, governments propagandizing, zealots proselytizing, and trolls antagonizing. Facebook can see these patterns better than anyone, and they could eliminate or de-rank the material from the 0.1% if they wanted to. But the 0.1% is disproportionately incendiary and therefore profitable, so Facebook has a very strong incentive to look the other way. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_law [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1%25_rule_(Internet_culture) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1%25_rule_(Internet_culture)

learnstats2 8y ago

> No doubt you are correct that 99.9% That's not my starting assumption. I think Facebook has a problem that its typical so-called "benign" users are creating less and less content, while malignant content-makers are not discouraged.

angott 8y ago
They acquired Instagram and keep acquiring small startups exactly for this reason. Content generation direct to FB is going down because the platform is not innovating anymore, and for now their only way out of it is through acquisitions.

ryandrake 8y ago

This is a case of “What you permit, you promote.” People focus on the 0.01% of a platform’s content that’s bad/toxic because that is what defines where the platform draws the line on what’s acceptable.

GreenJelloShot 8y ago
Isn't "What you permit, you promote" literally intolerance? The whole point of tolerance is to say "I don't agree with that, but I respect your right to do your own thing." This is advocating the exact opposite. Under this philosophy I can not longer be tolerant, because anything I "permit" I will be accused of promoting. This seems like a recipe for a horrible, horrible world.

stickfigure 8y ago

I'm puzzled why Facebook is getting the blame here. If you are seeing toxic content in your feed, it's because your friends put it there. It's not Facebook's fault that your friends suck.

nym 8y ago
Maybe it's that facebook encourages the content from your friends that is toxic, because that toxic content leads to more clicks, engagement, and ultimately revenue.
angott 8y ago
Yes, but your friends share content that sucks because the Facebook algorithm fills their feeds with click-bait, with the sole purpose of increasing engagement and user retention metrics.
pawelk 8y ago
> If you are seeing toxic content in your feed, it's because your friends put it there. Not really. Facebook put it there for me. Time and again it shows me items like "[Friend] replied to a comment on [toxic thing]", where the thing gets a prominent preview etc. I haven't seen a real update from [Friend] in my feed for months, yet there are plenty when I visit their profile. Even if the friend is fighting the good fight and has commented to correct some misconceptions, it's clear that this particular action was selected for my feed because it's related to a controversial item.
smt88 8y ago
No. The most toxic content is often comments, which are shown to me even when I don't want to see them. If it weren't for comments from non-friends, Facebook would have no toxic content for me at all.
- gscott 8y ago
  If you go to the persons profile and click unfollow then you won't see their comments on posts that are now yours.

taneq 8y ago

> If only 0.01% of toxic content by terms of volume is receiving disproportionate attention and focus You mean like the rumour-mongering, low-effort politics etc. in your standard tabloid?

colllectorof 8y ago

Not to mention that it's entirely possible to create very bad effects via benign content. Facebook (and other social media) use has been linked to a significant rise in depression. https://www.thisisinsider.com/social-media-link-depression-loneliness-2018-11 https://www.thisisinsider.com/social-media-link-depression-l... https://www.cbsnews.com/news/rise-in-suicide-and-social-media-is-there-a-link/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/rise-in-suicide-and-social-medi...