4 ms·

Reading through the list of top news stories on Facebook scared me. It is clear that news can't be chosen based on engagement and that Facebook can't change.

by djaque 6y ago

Reading through the list of top news stories on Facebook scared me. It is clear that news can't be chosen based on engagement and that Facebook can't change. Related: Wikipedia's current events portal [1] acts like a user sourced news feed which is a pretty good representation of reality. I wonder if you could commercialize a similarly moderated aggregator. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Current_events https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Current_events

metrokoi 6y ago
>It is clear that news can't be chosen based on engagement and that Facebook can't change. Why can't news be chosen on engagement? That's what people want to read. Must Facebook control what news people are reading? Wikipedia's current event portal may have a more even representation of what events are happening, but Wikipedia also has users that are interested in a wider range of topics. Most people mainly care about sports and politics. Scientific discoveries, economics, and international relations are simply not as interesting to as many people. Why shouldn't Facebook just have news based on engagement and a separate list with equal representation of events from many different topics?
- StanislavPetrov 6y ago
  >Why can't news be chosen on engagement? Because what most people engage with can't be accurately described as "news". >That's what people want to read. Must Facebook control what news people are reading? Much more likely Facebook is trying to hide from the world just how vapid and dim most of its users are.
- pfraze 6y ago
  Technically we can choose news by any metric we want depending on what we want, but I'd prefer the results reflect some combination of accuracy, reputability, importance, and interest. Whatever Facebook's current algorithm is doing, it's not that. > Must Facebook control what news people are reading? No, only what news they promote to their network. I don't care if FB manual curates the list or uses an algorithm, they're involved in the design and so they're making an editorial decision here.
- OminousWeapons 6y ago
  > Why can't news be chosen on engagement? That's what people want to read. Must Facebook control what news people are reading? They can optimize only for engagement with no curation, but they shouldn't. It shouldn't be done that way because people won't understand that this is the mechanism for content selection. They will think that because content shows up in a news section it has factual merit, and that the content being presented is an accurate representation of the current world context. If you only prioritize engagement, what you will create is a propaganda section masquerading as a news section because the most inflammatory, baseless, bullshit content is what draws the most engagement. That is in no one's best interest long term and it undermines the credibility of news media in general. If they want to create this, it should be labeled as entertainment, not news.
  - metrokoi 6y ago
    And if you curate news, you likely create a propaganda section selected by individuals or a small group of individuals. It's not as if an unbiased AI hand-picks which stories are of factual merit and representative of the current world context. Is a story from Facebook's curated feed about protests over a children's TV show more significant and accurate than "NASCAR’s Bubba Wallace wants confederate flags banned from race tracks"? Is J.K. Rowling doubling down on a "transphobic manifesto" more significant and/or accurate than the sister of a slain police officer asking "Where’s the outrage for a fallen officer who happens to be African American?"? A group of curators selecting content does not necessarily make that content any more factual either. Curated news greater possibility of being propaganda because the news selection is in the hands of the few instead of the many. Is a propaganda section a propaganda section if it contains propaganda from both sides? I suppose, in that it is a section that contains propaganda, but the section itself does not serve as an unequal biasing agent for viewers, unless your issue with the engagement-based recommendation is that you believe it is biased in a certain direction. That seems like quite the assumption to assume that people will think content has factual merit because it shows up in their news section. People should not be treated with kid gloves and herded in certain directions out of fear that we will harm ourselves. Facebook should clearly label news sections as "Selections Based on Engagement" and "Selections By Facebook Curators". People are capable of understaning that the selected news is biased.
- seesawtron 6y ago
  Social Media works by curating content that you like and building a safe bubble around you by showing the user the content that will positively reinforce their belief systems. Thereby keeping them shielded from views that are challenging or contradictory to their belief systems. Creating a positive reinforcement loop for the user to depend on it even more.
- specialist 6y ago
  Facebook controls the algorithm. That is the choice.
- snowwrestler 6y ago
  The Facebook algorithm is not based on what people want to read. It is based on what makes people the most upset. That’s what makes people stop what they were doing before, and click. That’s what Facebook is built to do: elevate content that “stops the thumb”. This is a direct quote from a FB rep advising my employer on how to perform better on Facebook. Here’s another one: “don’t be reasonable, be extreme. You need to stand out.” Imagine if you picked anything else that way. Only making friends with people who make you the most upset. Only eating foods that make you the most upset. Only dating people who make you the most upset. Is that a good life or bad life?
asdff 6y ago
If you want a raw current events feed just read reuters or AP rss. No need to establish a for profit middle man to do the function of existing technologies already in place.
- metrokoi 6y ago
  Exactly, people don't visit Facebook to get unbiased news. They don't want unbiased news. People go there to see news that interests them (and talk to friends and whatnot). The only reason to be against Facebook having a feed based on engagement is if you believe people should not be able to view news that is inflammatory and biased. Perhaps we should force Vice, Buzzfeed, Fox, the Daily Wire, and CNN to shut down and only allow people to read Reuters and AP. That would be even better for the world that Facebook discontinuing the "biased, inflammatory" news algorithm if one is against that sort of algorithm.
  - cageface 6y ago
    Oh come on. None of these are collecting user data in real-time and leading the user down engagement rabbit holes they never would have gone down otherwise. I watched a couple of amateur WW2 history videos on YouTube and almost immediately started getting suggestions for some very questionable alt right kinda stuff.
    - metrokoi 6y ago
      If the algorithms are leading people to alt right sources, (which I suspect is the real issue here, not that the Facebook news is inflammatory or biased, but that right leaning content is more represented) it is leading people to there because that's what they want to see. The algorithm sees that more people click on alt right videos than far left videos. Similar to how browsing reddit leads to rabbit holes leading to subreddits that joke about sending people to the Gulag. Unless you believe people are manipulating the algorithms deliberately to do this, but that sounds like a conspiracy. I use that word not to dismiss it, but because there is not any evidence of it. Again, if one believes serving users content which is exactly what they want to see if that is what users prefer is wrong, then only allowing people to see completely un-selection-biased content is even more right.

by djaque 6y ago

metrokoi 6y ago

>It is clear that news can't be chosen based on engagement and that Facebook can't change. Why can't news be chosen on engagement? That's what people want to read. Must Facebook control what news people are reading? Wikipedia's current event portal may have a more even representation of what events are happening, but Wikipedia also has users that are interested in a wider range of topics. Most people mainly care about sports and politics. Scientific discoveries, economics, and international relations are simply not as interesting to as many people. Why shouldn't Facebook just have news based on engagement and a separate list with equal representation of events from many different topics?

StanislavPetrov 6y ago
>Why can't news be chosen on engagement? Because what most people engage with can't be accurately described as "news". >That's what people want to read. Must Facebook control what news people are reading? Much more likely Facebook is trying to hide from the world just how vapid and dim most of its users are.
pfraze 6y ago
Technically we can choose news by any metric we want depending on what we want, but I'd prefer the results reflect some combination of accuracy, reputability, importance, and interest. Whatever Facebook's current algorithm is doing, it's not that. > Must Facebook control what news people are reading? No, only what news they promote to their network. I don't care if FB manual curates the list or uses an algorithm, they're involved in the design and so they're making an editorial decision here.
OminousWeapons 6y ago
> Why can't news be chosen on engagement? That's what people want to read. Must Facebook control what news people are reading? They can optimize only for engagement with no curation, but they shouldn't. It shouldn't be done that way because people won't understand that this is the mechanism for content selection. They will think that because content shows up in a news section it has factual merit, and that the content being presented is an accurate representation of the current world context. If you only prioritize engagement, what you will create is a propaganda section masquerading as a news section because the most inflammatory, baseless, bullshit content is what draws the most engagement. That is in no one's best interest long term and it undermines the credibility of news media in general. If they want to create this, it should be labeled as entertainment, not news.
- metrokoi 6y ago
  And if you curate news, you likely create a propaganda section selected by individuals or a small group of individuals. It's not as if an unbiased AI hand-picks which stories are of factual merit and representative of the current world context. Is a story from Facebook's curated feed about protests over a children's TV show more significant and accurate than "NASCAR’s Bubba Wallace wants confederate flags banned from race tracks"? Is J.K. Rowling doubling down on a "transphobic manifesto" more significant and/or accurate than the sister of a slain police officer asking "Where’s the outrage for a fallen officer who happens to be African American?"? A group of curators selecting content does not necessarily make that content any more factual either. Curated news greater possibility of being propaganda because the news selection is in the hands of the few instead of the many. Is a propaganda section a propaganda section if it contains propaganda from both sides? I suppose, in that it is a section that contains propaganda, but the section itself does not serve as an unequal biasing agent for viewers, unless your issue with the engagement-based recommendation is that you believe it is biased in a certain direction. That seems like quite the assumption to assume that people will think content has factual merit because it shows up in their news section. People should not be treated with kid gloves and herded in certain directions out of fear that we will harm ourselves. Facebook should clearly label news sections as "Selections Based on Engagement" and "Selections By Facebook Curators". People are capable of understaning that the selected news is biased.
seesawtron 6y ago
Social Media works by curating content that you like and building a safe bubble around you by showing the user the content that will positively reinforce their belief systems. Thereby keeping them shielded from views that are challenging or contradictory to their belief systems. Creating a positive reinforcement loop for the user to depend on it even more.
specialist 6y ago
Facebook controls the algorithm. That is the choice.
snowwrestler 6y ago
The Facebook algorithm is not based on what people want to read. It is based on what makes people the most upset. That’s what makes people stop what they were doing before, and click. That’s what Facebook is built to do: elevate content that “stops the thumb”. This is a direct quote from a FB rep advising my employer on how to perform better on Facebook. Here’s another one: “don’t be reasonable, be extreme. You need to stand out.” Imagine if you picked anything else that way. Only making friends with people who make you the most upset. Only eating foods that make you the most upset. Only dating people who make you the most upset. Is that a good life or bad life?

asdff 6y ago

If you want a raw current events feed just read reuters or AP rss. No need to establish a for profit middle man to do the function of existing technologies already in place.

metrokoi 6y ago
Exactly, people don't visit Facebook to get unbiased news. They don't want unbiased news. People go there to see news that interests them (and talk to friends and whatnot). The only reason to be against Facebook having a feed based on engagement is if you believe people should not be able to view news that is inflammatory and biased. Perhaps we should force Vice, Buzzfeed, Fox, the Daily Wire, and CNN to shut down and only allow people to read Reuters and AP. That would be even better for the world that Facebook discontinuing the "biased, inflammatory" news algorithm if one is against that sort of algorithm.
- cageface 6y ago
  Oh come on. None of these are collecting user data in real-time and leading the user down engagement rabbit holes they never would have gone down otherwise. I watched a couple of amateur WW2 history videos on YouTube and almost immediately started getting suggestions for some very questionable alt right kinda stuff.
  - metrokoi 6y ago
    If the algorithms are leading people to alt right sources, (which I suspect is the real issue here, not that the Facebook news is inflammatory or biased, but that right leaning content is more represented) it is leading people to there because that's what they want to see. The algorithm sees that more people click on alt right videos than far left videos. Similar to how browsing reddit leads to rabbit holes leading to subreddits that joke about sending people to the Gulag. Unless you believe people are manipulating the algorithms deliberately to do this, but that sounds like a conspiracy. I use that word not to dismiss it, but because there is not any evidence of it. Again, if one believes serving users content which is exactly what they want to see if that is what users prefer is wrong, then only allowing people to see completely un-selection-biased content is even more right.