3 ms·

Do you have any evidence that "inflammatory" opinions are disproportionally prominent compared to the fraction of people who hold said opinions?

by im3w1l 6y ago

3131s 6y ago
It would be nice to know the answer to these sort of questions. When using online services, and especially enormous ones like Facebook, it's always good to ask yourself "why am I seeing this?" or "how did I get here?".
Barrin92 6y ago
Yes, we have that research from Facebook itself, which they promptly shelved. https://www.theverge.com/2020/5/26/21270659/facebook-division-news-feed-algorithms https://www.theverge.com/2020/5/26/21270659/facebook-divisio... "“Our algorithms exploit the human brain’s attraction to divisiveness,” one slide from the presentation read. The group found that if this core element of its recommendation engine were left unchecked, it would continue to serve Facebook users “more and more divisive content in an effort to gain user attention & increase time on the platform.” A separate internal report, crafted in 2016, said 64 percent of people who joined an extremist group on Facebook only did so because the company’s algorithm recommended it to them, the WSJ reports."
- im3w1l 6y ago
  The Verge cites WSJ. WSJ mentions "a presentation" but doesn't include it. What little they cite is not very substantive. "more and more divisive content" this is vague and omnious, and not even very likely. These algorithms will reach an equilibrium. WSJ further mentions that "some proposed changes would have disproportionately affected conservative users and publishers" To me this is a sign that the presentation was made by a partisan inside of Facebook. All in all, I don't think this is very confidence inspiring. We would really need some third party to do a better job of investigating this.
  - Barrin92 6y ago
    You gotta be kidding me. You know as well as I do that we're never going to get comprehensive third party access to Facebook data. When even internal research suggests that their platform drives division your conclusion is they're overstating their case, people who are on facebooks payroll? That's like Enron publishing internal research about corruption and someone going "well I guess these guys are partisan"
    - im3w1l 6y ago
      I've worked in ranking myself and seen how the debates go from the inside. I would not take a conclusion like this at face value, no. If they had included some data, maybe. What you would likely have to do to determine this as an outsider is sample a number of people, ask them for opinions on stuff, look at their feeds. See if certain opinions are overrepresented. Look at correlation between opinions they have and opinions they see while you are at it.

Do you have any evidence that "inflammatory" opinions are disproportionally prominent compared to the fraction of people who hold said opinions?

by im3w1l 6y ago

Do you have any evidence that "inflammatory" opinions are disproportionally prominent compared to the fraction of people who hold said opinions?

3131s 6y ago

It would be nice to know the answer to these sort of questions. When using online services, and especially enormous ones like Facebook, it's always good to ask yourself "why am I seeing this?" or "how did I get here?".

Barrin92 6y ago

Yes, we have that research from Facebook itself, which they promptly shelved. https://www.theverge.com/2020/5/26/21270659/facebook-division-news-feed-algorithms https://www.theverge.com/2020/5/26/21270659/facebook-divisio... "“Our algorithms exploit the human brain’s attraction to divisiveness,” one slide from the presentation read. The group found that if this core element of its recommendation engine were left unchecked, it would continue to serve Facebook users “more and more divisive content in an effort to gain user attention & increase time on the platform.” A separate internal report, crafted in 2016, said 64 percent of people who joined an extremist group on Facebook only did so because the company’s algorithm recommended it to them, the WSJ reports."

im3w1l 6y ago
The Verge cites WSJ. WSJ mentions "a presentation" but doesn't include it. What little they cite is not very substantive. "more and more divisive content" this is vague and omnious, and not even very likely. These algorithms will reach an equilibrium. WSJ further mentions that "some proposed changes would have disproportionately affected conservative users and publishers" To me this is a sign that the presentation was made by a partisan inside of Facebook. All in all, I don't think this is very confidence inspiring. We would really need some third party to do a better job of investigating this.
- Barrin92 6y ago
  You gotta be kidding me. You know as well as I do that we're never going to get comprehensive third party access to Facebook data. When even internal research suggests that their platform drives division your conclusion is they're overstating their case, people who are on facebooks payroll? That's like Enron publishing internal research about corruption and someone going "well I guess these guys are partisan"
  - im3w1l 6y ago
    I've worked in ranking myself and seen how the debates go from the inside. I would not take a conclusion like this at face value, no. If they had included some data, maybe. What you would likely have to do to determine this as an outsider is sample a number of people, ask them for opinions on stuff, look at their feeds. See if certain opinions are overrepresented. Look at correlation between opinions they have and opinions they see while you are at it.