4 ms·

I assure you that Facebook is both very powerful and very involved in politics. Just the month it came out that their own research found their recommendation sy

I assure you that Facebook is both very powerful and very involved in politics. Just the month it came out that their own research found their recommendation systems were engaging people with the far-right. The execs allowed it. It is impossible for Facebook to exist and act outside of politics. It’s a nonsensical idea that they could avoid involvement in political issues given the definition of politics.

klingonopera 6y ago
I find it ok for Facebook to do something like their "Top stories" based on what their algorithm determines for me. But I'm somewhat annoyed that "Most recent" doesn't actually sort the news feed chronologically, and also show everything. The algorithm is still doing something there.
- xhkkffbf 6y ago
  Yes! I want to see everything my friends are posting, not what FB thinks I should see.
  - pizzicato 6y ago
    Perhaps less applicable to the Facebook issue, but I have found Mastodon to be a potentially viable replacement for Twitter, though it definitely skews heavily towards the tech crowd. Chronological timelines, and user-driven moderation. Plus there are way more users now than there were when I joined a few years ago.
gfodor 6y ago
From first principles, it is possible to have the medium of Facebook, without the infusion of politics. One only has to imagine an orchestration layer on top of email, contact lists, with a publicly visible open source algorithm driving ranking. I don't think that world can exist now, but it can be a useful mental model to disprove the assumption that the communication medium Facebook provides is inherently coupled with centralized editorial control.
jariel 6y ago
" It’s a nonsensical idea that they could avoid involvement in political issues given the definition of politics." It's sensical. The issues are objectivity and established protocols, independent of executive tinkering or favour. If some government agency, or industry body, 'very intelligently' and hopefully in collaboration with all the necessary parties (highly doubtful but possible), established a set of 'regulatory protocols for social media' - then FB, Twitter could wash their hands of this. They set up internal controls, a segregated unit with maybe an 'independent oversight board' based on those policies. When there are special cases, they are flagged to the regulatory body who can maybe provide guidance and a ruling. That way, instead of Zuck coming out and saying 'this is why it was allowed or not' - you have the head of some FB body making the statement, backed by the oversight board, and why it conforms with the specific, established regulatory guidance. That said, it would also probably be within Twitter/FB rights to remove anything else they wanted to remove, after all, they are a private company. If we wanted to extend their status by virtue of their influence as 'partial public good' - then maybe they could only remove other content within certain parameters (i.e. advertisers don't want it or whatever). FYI - the Trump 'Tweet' itself was terrible ("Once the looting starts, the shooting starts") and is easily within any policy grounds to take down - however - the actual FB post by Trump, is not that, rather, it's that sentence plus an indication that the statement is meant to infer that looting causes violence etc. which is actually very reasonably above bar. For example, if Trump made the FB post alone, without having made the previous Tweet, there'd be little said about it. It's not controversial to say "When rioting starts, violence starts because things get out of control etc. etc." i.e. a contextualize statement. I'm really perplexed at why Mark and Jack Dorsey have any inclination to stand in the world and justify their willy nilly decisions to do this or that on a case by case basis. It makes them seem like they're making it up as they go along, an it's just inviting controversy. It's a no-win. Get some really cold, boring, intelligent, articulate administrator with a legal background, someeone with the stature and credibility of a judge ... and let them do the talking - the world will appreaciate it. During Covid - all over the world - we're seeing doctors and bureaucrats take the microphone. It's very refreshing to see people who know what they are talking about, speak in detail. They don't seem political. They are super boring to the point where it's dry, anti-populism, they speaking like real adults. Then we can argue about regulations instead of personal politics.

klingonopera 6y ago

I find it ok for Facebook to do something like their "Top stories" based on what their algorithm determines for me. But I'm somewhat annoyed that "Most recent" doesn't actually sort the news feed chronologically, and also show everything. The algorithm is still doing something there.

xhkkffbf 6y ago
Yes! I want to see everything my friends are posting, not what FB thinks I should see.
- pizzicato 6y ago
  Perhaps less applicable to the Facebook issue, but I have found Mastodon to be a potentially viable replacement for Twitter, though it definitely skews heavily towards the tech crowd. Chronological timelines, and user-driven moderation. Plus there are way more users now than there were when I joined a few years ago.

gfodor 6y ago

From first principles, it is possible to have the medium of Facebook, without the infusion of politics. One only has to imagine an orchestration layer on top of email, contact lists, with a publicly visible open source algorithm driving ranking. I don't think that world can exist now, but it can be a useful mental model to disprove the assumption that the communication medium Facebook provides is inherently coupled with centralized editorial control.

jariel 6y ago

" It’s a nonsensical idea that they could avoid involvement in political issues given the definition of politics." It's sensical. The issues are objectivity and established protocols, independent of executive tinkering or favour. If some government agency, or industry body, 'very intelligently' and hopefully in collaboration with all the necessary parties (highly doubtful but possible), established a set of 'regulatory protocols for social media' - then FB, Twitter could wash their hands of this. They set up internal controls, a segregated unit with maybe an 'independent oversight board' based on those policies. When there are special cases, they are flagged to the regulatory body who can maybe provide guidance and a ruling. That way, instead of Zuck coming out and saying 'this is why it was allowed or not' - you have the head of some FB body making the statement, backed by the oversight board, and why it conforms with the specific, established regulatory guidance. That said, it would also probably be within Twitter/FB rights to remove anything else they wanted to remove, after all, they are a private company. If we wanted to extend their status by virtue of their influence as 'partial public good' - then maybe they could only remove other content within certain parameters (i.e. advertisers don't want it or whatever). FYI - the Trump 'Tweet' itself was terrible ("Once the looting starts, the shooting starts") and is easily within any policy grounds to take down - however - the actual FB post by Trump, is not that, rather, it's that sentence plus an indication that the statement is meant to infer that looting causes violence etc. which is actually very reasonably above bar. For example, if Trump made the FB post alone, without having made the previous Tweet, there'd be little said about it. It's not controversial to say "When rioting starts, violence starts because things get out of control etc. etc." i.e. a contextualize statement. I'm really perplexed at why Mark and Jack Dorsey have any inclination to stand in the world and justify their willy nilly decisions to do this or that on a case by case basis. It makes them seem like they're making it up as they go along, an it's just inviting controversy. It's a no-win. Get some really cold, boring, intelligent, articulate administrator with a legal background, someeone with the stature and credibility of a judge ... and let them do the talking - the world will appreaciate it. During Covid - all over the world - we're seeing doctors and bureaucrats take the microphone. It's very refreshing to see people who know what they are talking about, speak in detail. They don't seem political. They are super boring to the point where it's dry, anti-populism, they speaking like real adults. Then we can argue about regulations instead of personal politics.