6 ms·

Bias. It affects everything. Science, religion, politics, public policy, company policy, policing, the judiciary, journalism, and (any)one's decision-making r

Bias. It affects everything. Science, religion, politics, public policy, company policy, policing, the judiciary, journalism, and (any)one's decision-making regarding 'facts'. Not sure how we're going to solve it on a platform like Facebook. The systems governing over it - government and politics - are not going so well in the bias department themselves. As for 'the people', they're just as biased. In fact, that's where it comes from. The problem is humans, not the technology. Even though I have low regard for them, sometimes I realise Facebook is doing the hardest job in the world.

tails4e 6y ago
The problem is the technology too. For the first time in history can two people see the same information source (in this case Facebook) but see two completely different worlds, as each one gets their own bubble, and that bubble is biased. I often see friends Netflix accounts and prefer what they are getting suggested than mine, as Netflix presents me the bubble it thinks i'll like, and I never see the other variation that I want (unless I look at others' accounts), so can't easily expand beyond my bubble. In Netflix's case they want me to see more content, but in Facebooks case they are perfectly happy with bubbles as it makes their targeted advertising easier. Sometimes I'd like to know that the version of a site I'm seeing is the same as others as I really don't want to be in my own information bubble.
- mindfulhack 6y ago
  Yes, great point, absolutely. On that level, things can be done. Suppose I'm talking on a bigger / higher level. (My mind tends to go 'straight there'.) Thanks for giving some hope.
- Nextgrid 6y ago
  It’s less about technology per-se and more about mismatched incentives and a toxic business model. Facebook and most social networks are not incentivised to give you a “true” or at least unbiased version of the world, they are incentivised to tweak it as much as they want in order to increase engagement. This wouldn’t be so bad if people were aware of this and would check alternative sources or take steps to mitigate that, but a lot of people seem to not know, forget or ignore this fact. As a less serious example, I always create new music streaming accounts and start fresh (as a perk I get unlimited free trials) every month simply because none of them offer a permanent “incognito” mode and I find my recommendations forever poisoned just because I happened to check out an irrelevant song/album (or let friends use my phone to play music for a party and their tastes differ from mine). This is actually what I miss about radio, where you get an unpersonalized view of the current musical landscape - unfortunately ads are a dealbreaker so I just stick to “hacks” like this instead.
  - Lammy 6y ago
    It's the technology too, down to the little things like (for example) priming somebody to want to comment on a divisive topic by surfacing those topics to their feed as "Friend commented" edge stories if there's an argument going on. FB's model doesn't know it's an argument and that asking a person to take part will increase the overall level of human-to-human hate in the world. The model only knows what to do to make Facebook the most money.
  - chillacy 6y ago
    What makes it worse is there are certain topics where there is no objective, unbiased view beyond believing what most of your peers believe.
swayson 6y ago
Technology amplifies the effect though.
kingkawn 6y ago
The presumption that there is a possible unbiased perspective is itself the most insidious form of bias.
- hleszek 6y ago
  The presumption that there are always multiple perspectives and that they might be equally valid can be another bias. Especially in the news. Sometimes one party is clearly right and the other is clearly wrong.
  - luckylion 6y ago
    That's very rare though. Usually, the impression is achieved by intentionally leaving out facts to make the picture look more clear cut. Once you go into the details, in most cases, clarity goes away and everything gets fuzzy and grey. But nobody wants to read "it's complicated, here are some facts so you can figure out your thoughts on the matter", so we tend to cut away half and paint the rest in broad strokes to turn that into "This is reality, and here are the monsters who deny it".
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - BrianOnHN 6y ago
      I'd love to hear these "details" that paint conservative-trump supporters and their quack-anon conspiracies as anything other than monsters.
      - luckylion 6y ago
        Incentivizing people not to work leads to people not working.
        BrianOnHN 6y ago
        That's a straw man argument based on your assumption of second or third-order consequences. Edit: No politician anywhere ever introduced a bill with the intentions of "Incentivizing people not to work." Even "shutting down the economy" has the intention of being able to get back to 100% sooner and thus maximizing total output/GDP/work over a period longer than the short-sighted days/weeks immediately ahead.
bluesign 6y ago
I think the problem is ‘wrong bias’ which is directly related to overestimating self, which is basic human nature.
intended 6y ago
True. But not in this case. FB and most sites which have a bias against, say conspiracy theories, regularly find themselves against conservative forces which for, whatever reason, have a willingness to expound and accept conspiracy theories. > https://phys.org/news/2018-12-political-views-people-false-dangers.html https://phys.org/news/2018-12-political-views-people-false-d... Can't find the original articles which showed how conspiracies thrive in different political groups. This then creates the new phenomenon that people here are trying to explain. IF BOTH groups were equal, the bias in action would be then on FB's end. Both groups are NOT equal, and frankly American conservatives (as a group) are far more often to be targetted and spreaders of conspiracy theories and misinformation. This means they are also the subject of far more actions. Since they are the subject of far more actions, this creates a political opportunity. As you can see in this discussion, there is a difference between Perceived Skew of Moderation, and Actual Skew of Moderation. Now people can say "See, we need to deal with FB in congress, because they do more against Conservatives! We suffer more action!". Since FB is also in california, and accused of being "liberal" this accusation is even easier to sell, since it is already believed. FB responds by giving them extra passes, so that they don't get called out or forced to handle new legislation which complicates an already complicated field. ---------- Its really interesting to see how the argument here hinges entire on people's perceptions of what the world is ("both sides are the same") and reality (one side is more affected than the other)
- linuxftw 6y ago
  > Both groups are NOT equal, and frankly American conservatives (as a group) are far more often to be targetted and spreaders of conspiracy theories and misinformation. If only this were even remotely true. Every time you hear about 'white nationalists' or 'the alt right' doing X, that's a conspiracy theory. And we know who spreads that nonsense. Also, Russia-gate. And how the Senate refused to call witnesses, some large conspiracy. There's currently conspiracy theories floating around about mail sorting machines being removed. In 2016, there were conspiracies surrounding the destruction of primary ballots that were in favor of Bernie Sanders. It's hard to reconcile the evidence with your opinion. It seems to me, both groups market in conspiracy. Both groups think the other group is full of potatoes.
- 6y ago

tails4e 6y ago

The problem is the technology too. For the first time in history can two people see the same information source (in this case Facebook) but see two completely different worlds, as each one gets their own bubble, and that bubble is biased. I often see friends Netflix accounts and prefer what they are getting suggested than mine, as Netflix presents me the bubble it thinks i'll like, and I never see the other variation that I want (unless I look at others' accounts), so can't easily expand beyond my bubble. In Netflix's case they want me to see more content, but in Facebooks case they are perfectly happy with bubbles as it makes their targeted advertising easier. Sometimes I'd like to know that the version of a site I'm seeing is the same as others as I really don't want to be in my own information bubble.

mindfulhack 6y ago
Yes, great point, absolutely. On that level, things can be done. Suppose I'm talking on a bigger / higher level. (My mind tends to go 'straight there'.) Thanks for giving some hope.
Nextgrid 6y ago
It’s less about technology per-se and more about mismatched incentives and a toxic business model. Facebook and most social networks are not incentivised to give you a “true” or at least unbiased version of the world, they are incentivised to tweak it as much as they want in order to increase engagement. This wouldn’t be so bad if people were aware of this and would check alternative sources or take steps to mitigate that, but a lot of people seem to not know, forget or ignore this fact. As a less serious example, I always create new music streaming accounts and start fresh (as a perk I get unlimited free trials) every month simply because none of them offer a permanent “incognito” mode and I find my recommendations forever poisoned just because I happened to check out an irrelevant song/album (or let friends use my phone to play music for a party and their tastes differ from mine). This is actually what I miss about radio, where you get an unpersonalized view of the current musical landscape - unfortunately ads are a dealbreaker so I just stick to “hacks” like this instead.
- Lammy 6y ago
  It's the technology too, down to the little things like (for example) priming somebody to want to comment on a divisive topic by surfacing those topics to their feed as "Friend commented" edge stories if there's an argument going on. FB's model doesn't know it's an argument and that asking a person to take part will increase the overall level of human-to-human hate in the world. The model only knows what to do to make Facebook the most money.
- chillacy 6y ago
  What makes it worse is there are certain topics where there is no objective, unbiased view beyond believing what most of your peers believe.

swayson 6y ago

Technology amplifies the effect though.

kingkawn 6y ago

The presumption that there is a possible unbiased perspective is itself the most insidious form of bias.

hleszek 6y ago
The presumption that there are always multiple perspectives and that they might be equally valid can be another bias. Especially in the news. Sometimes one party is clearly right and the other is clearly wrong.
- luckylion 6y ago
  That's very rare though. Usually, the impression is achieved by intentionally leaving out facts to make the picture look more clear cut. Once you go into the details, in most cases, clarity goes away and everything gets fuzzy and grey. But nobody wants to read "it's complicated, here are some facts so you can figure out your thoughts on the matter", so we tend to cut away half and paint the rest in broad strokes to turn that into "This is reality, and here are the monsters who deny it".
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - BrianOnHN 6y ago
    I'd love to hear these "details" that paint conservative-trump supporters and their quack-anon conspiracies as anything other than monsters.
    - luckylion 6y ago
      Incentivizing people not to work leads to people not working.
      - BrianOnHN 6y ago
        That's a straw man argument based on your assumption of second or third-order consequences. Edit: No politician anywhere ever introduced a bill with the intentions of "Incentivizing people not to work." Even "shutting down the economy" has the intention of being able to get back to 100% sooner and thus maximizing total output/GDP/work over a period longer than the short-sighted days/weeks immediately ahead.

bluesign 6y ago

I think the problem is ‘wrong bias’ which is directly related to overestimating self, which is basic human nature.

intended 6y ago

True. But not in this case. FB and most sites which have a bias against, say conspiracy theories, regularly find themselves against conservative forces which for, whatever reason, have a willingness to expound and accept conspiracy theories. > https://phys.org/news/2018-12-political-views-people-false-dangers.html https://phys.org/news/2018-12-political-views-people-false-d... Can't find the original articles which showed how conspiracies thrive in different political groups. This then creates the new phenomenon that people here are trying to explain. IF BOTH groups were equal, the bias in action would be then on FB's end. Both groups are NOT equal, and frankly American conservatives (as a group) are far more often to be targetted and spreaders of conspiracy theories and misinformation. This means they are also the subject of far more actions. Since they are the subject of far more actions, this creates a political opportunity. As you can see in this discussion, there is a difference between Perceived Skew of Moderation, and Actual Skew of Moderation. Now people can say "See, we need to deal with FB in congress, because they do more against Conservatives! We suffer more action!". Since FB is also in california, and accused of being "liberal" this accusation is even easier to sell, since it is already believed. FB responds by giving them extra passes, so that they don't get called out or forced to handle new legislation which complicates an already complicated field. ---------- Its really interesting to see how the argument here hinges entire on people's perceptions of what the world is ("both sides are the same") and reality (one side is more affected than the other)

linuxftw 6y ago
> Both groups are NOT equal, and frankly American conservatives (as a group) are far more often to be targetted and spreaders of conspiracy theories and misinformation. If only this were even remotely true. Every time you hear about 'white nationalists' or 'the alt right' doing X, that's a conspiracy theory. And we know who spreads that nonsense. Also, Russia-gate. And how the Senate refused to call witnesses, some large conspiracy. There's currently conspiracy theories floating around about mail sorting machines being removed. In 2016, there were conspiracies surrounding the destruction of primary ballots that were in favor of Bernie Sanders. It's hard to reconcile the evidence with your opinion. It seems to me, both groups market in conspiracy. Both groups think the other group is full of potatoes.
6y ago