3 ms·

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 a

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.
  - cageface 6y ago
    So you're arguing that there's been a massive pent up demand for alt right content that has gone unmet until now? I'm not buying it. People are very easily influenced by what you put in front of them. Until recently there were some moderating influences on what that was.
    - metrokoi 6y ago
      There was far more alt right content on YouTube several years ago. YouTube has gotten much stricter for what content they allow. I remember seeing recommendations for a rapper called "moonman" who rapped about killing blacks that had hundreds of thousands of views and were more than a year old after I watched a vaporwave album by an artist called Saint Pepsi (they both used the same McDonald's mascot in the videos). I didn't find any such videos today with YouTube's search. What moderating influences were there back then that we don't have today? Ten years ago was the wild west for the internet; I also remember major controversies over subreddits called r/watchpeopledie and r/fatpeoplehate being banned, which were exactly as you would imagine. I don't mean this as an insult or to dismiss your views, but I can only imagine you haven't been on the internet very long if you believe it used to be more moderated and less radical.
      - cageface 6y ago
        I've been on the internet since it was called Gopher and there was no such thing as the WWW. It's far far more influential now than ever before and that influence seems much more negative now than ever.

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.
- cageface 6y ago
  So you're arguing that there's been a massive pent up demand for alt right content that has gone unmet until now? I'm not buying it. People are very easily influenced by what you put in front of them. Until recently there were some moderating influences on what that was.
  - metrokoi 6y ago
    There was far more alt right content on YouTube several years ago. YouTube has gotten much stricter for what content they allow. I remember seeing recommendations for a rapper called "moonman" who rapped about killing blacks that had hundreds of thousands of views and were more than a year old after I watched a vaporwave album by an artist called Saint Pepsi (they both used the same McDonald's mascot in the videos). I didn't find any such videos today with YouTube's search. What moderating influences were there back then that we don't have today? Ten years ago was the wild west for the internet; I also remember major controversies over subreddits called r/watchpeopledie and r/fatpeoplehate being banned, which were exactly as you would imagine. I don't mean this as an insult or to dismiss your views, but I can only imagine you haven't been on the internet very long if you believe it used to be more moderated and less radical.
    - cageface 6y ago
      I've been on the internet since it was called Gopher and there was no such thing as the WWW. It's far far more influential now than ever before and that influence seems much more negative now than ever.