4 ms·

>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 r

>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?

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?