4 ms·

> the business model of social media is based on generating "engagement" at all costs I haven't seen evidence that outrage driven engagement is profitable, tho

> the business model of social media is based on generating "engagement" at all costs I haven't seen evidence that outrage driven engagement is profitable, though the statement is frequently repeated. Is it possible that divisiveness is an intended effect? We know that governments sow discord to achieve selfish ends. Why wouldn't similarly powerful business interests?

Nextgrid 6y ago
> I haven't seen evidence that outrage driven engagement is profitable, though the statement is frequently repeated. Let's assume that you are able to create a social network the scale of Facebook and network effects aren't an issue (let's imagine a magical solution that interoperates with existing social networks in such a way that accounts work on either side and content is visible from both sides) with the caveat that you instantly ban accounts that participate in political flamewars, intentionally spread misinformation/fake news, etc. You're going to end up banning a significant chunk of people that would otherwise make you money if you just turned a blind eye to the problem like current social networks do.
- rmrfstar 6y ago
  Is it true that failing to ban is the source of the divisiveness? I haven't used Facebook before, but it seems like the mechanism is the feed, which prioritizes divisive content. Even as a relatively senior employee, you may be unable to discern intent. You might just get an incentive scheme that compensates you for engagement rather than profitable engagement.
  - Nextgrid 6y ago
    The feed brings visibility to offensive content, but ultimately someone has to create that content in the first place. Even if you kept the feed as-is, as long as you had bulletproof moderation that would nuke any offensive content (or other mechanisms that are effective at discouraging people from posting such content), there wouldn't be any bad content for the feed to recommend.

Nextgrid 6y ago

> I haven't seen evidence that outrage driven engagement is profitable, though the statement is frequently repeated. Let's assume that you are able to create a social network the scale of Facebook and network effects aren't an issue (let's imagine a magical solution that interoperates with existing social networks in such a way that accounts work on either side and content is visible from both sides) with the caveat that you instantly ban accounts that participate in political flamewars, intentionally spread misinformation/fake news, etc. You're going to end up banning a significant chunk of people that would otherwise make you money if you just turned a blind eye to the problem like current social networks do.

rmrfstar 6y ago
Is it true that failing to ban is the source of the divisiveness? I haven't used Facebook before, but it seems like the mechanism is the feed, which prioritizes divisive content. Even as a relatively senior employee, you may be unable to discern intent. You might just get an incentive scheme that compensates you for engagement rather than profitable engagement.
- Nextgrid 6y ago
  The feed brings visibility to offensive content, but ultimately someone has to create that content in the first place. Even if you kept the feed as-is, as long as you had bulletproof moderation that would nuke any offensive content (or other mechanisms that are effective at discouraging people from posting such content), there wouldn't be any bad content for the feed to recommend.