7 ms·

Some of the most interesting excerpts (although it's worth reading in its entirety): > My path in technology started at Facebook where I was the first Director

by 4cao 6y ago

Some of the most interesting excerpts (although it's worth reading in its entirety): > My path in technology started at Facebook where I was the first Director of Monetization. [...] we sought to mine as much attention as humanly possible and turn into historically unprecedented profits. We took a page from Big Tobacco’s playbook, working to make our offering addictive at the outset. > Tobacco companies [...] added sugar and menthol to cigarettes so you could hold the smoke in your lungs for longer periods. At Facebook, we added status updates, photo tagging, and likes, which made status and reputation primary and laid the groundwork for a teenage mental health crisis. > Allowing for misinformation, conspiracy theories, and fake news to flourish were like Big Tobacco’s bronchodilators, which allowed the cigarette smoke to cover more surface area of the lungs. > Tobacco companies added ammonia to cigarettes to increase the speed with which nicotine traveled to the brain. Extreme, incendiary content—think shocking images, graphic videos, and headlines that incite outrage—sowed tribalism and division. And this result has been unprecedented engagement -- and profits. Facebook’s ability to deliver this incendiary content to the right person, at the right time, in the exact right way... that is their ammonia. > The algorithm maximizes your attention by hitting you repeatedly with content that triggers your strongest emotions — it aims to provoke, shock, and enrage. All the while, the technology is getting smarter and better at provoking a response from you. [...] This is not by accident. It’s an algorithmically optimized playbook to maximize user attention -- and profits. > When it comes to misinformation, these companies hide behind the First Amendment and say they stand for free speech. At the same time, their algorithms continually choose whose voice is actually heard. In truth, it is not free speech they revere. Instead, Facebook and their cohorts worship at the altar of engagement and cast all other concerns aside, raising the voices of division, anger, hate and misinformation to drown out the voices of truth, justice, morality, and peace.

dylan604 6y ago
This bit of dialog should be the smoking gun in my opinion. Big Tobacco got taken to the woodshed over this very thing: making the product as addictive as possible. This should be the club that is used to beat Social Media platforms over their heads. As with Big Tobacco I'm sure it rings true with Social platforms as well in that not just one of them is doing it they all are.
- SQueeeeeL 6y ago
  They really didn't; cigarettes were allowed to flourish for decades and legal action was only taken once their popularity started to wane. Don't expect any meaningful action from your govt
  - dylan604 6y ago
    Sure, Big Tobacco is still a thing. However, their actions of targeting kids/teens were curtailed. The money they were forced to spend on ad campaigns informing teens of "smoking is bad" appears to have worked. Current reports show smoking in teens has dropped significantly, including current downward trends in vaping as well. The biggest thing you go do to hurt the likes of FB,IG,Twitter would be to brand them as lame and uncool. If people don't want to use it, then it effects their bottom line. Gov't action isn't require for this, but the right campaign attacking the cool factor will motivate people away from it. (I'm currently wearing my positive thinking cap)
- ALittleLight 6y ago
  One problem with this is that it's easy to conflate "addictive" with "people like to use it". Should television shows been punished for cliffhangers because they hook people into seeing the next episode? Breaking Bad had an interesting plot and character progression that made me want to keep watching - are they addicting me? One person might say "We created all these statuses and features to be addictive" but it seems just as true to say "We created this stuff because people liked it and we are trying to make something people like."
  - lallysingh 6y ago
    Different words with different definitions. Who cares if people like to use it if it's addictive? "Addiction is a brain disorder characterized by compulsive engagement in rewarding stimuli despite adverse consequences." Wikipedia
    - kbos87 6y ago
mdifrgechd 6y ago
Re: the comments about incendiary content and maximizing attention. This is what every news outlet tries to do. The only difference is that FB is better at it. It reminds me of the controversy about targeting ads towards protected categories (age, gender). This is something all media buys do as well, based on location, event type, but FB just has a better way. I'm not saying its right, or necessarily wrong, just that this seems to be more about them being good at something than it is about them operating in moral territory that is different than any other business.
- deathgrips 6y ago
  It is new to run targeted ads at protected classes. And it is new moral territory. Example: The government of Iran use pizza ads targeted towards gay people to track down their identities. Still the same as other media?
- hogFeast 6y ago
  The guy is complaining about incendiary content whilst repeatedly comparing Facebook to "Big Tobacco"...I think there is a lot of bombastic nonsense being thrown about. And I agree Facebook is not the first company in the world to maximise attention with this kind of content. Go back to when political pamphlets started appearing in the 16th century, it was mostly salacious bullshit about well-known public figures being possessed by the devil or drinking the blood of orphans. I am not even sure what the problem is anymore, let alone what the solution is...but this is not going to stop with Facebook, this is just a reflection of human nature (and yes, everyone has complained about this kind of "content", it ignores the fact that most humans enjoy consuming it). (I think the most problematic part of Facebook is just that so many people get their news from there and, like every human that has ever existed, they have been unable to deal with that responsibility in an even-handed way...I don't know though. They are basically a dead platform anyway, it is mainly used by old people to keep up to-date with their grandchildren afaik...I don't really know anyone who uses it, and I have never used it myself).
  - anigbrowl 6y ago
    They are basically a dead platform anyway, it is mainly used by old people to keep up to-date with their grandchildren afaik...I don't really know anyone who uses it, and I have never used it myself This is terribly myopic; you don't have to like FB or want to use it to recognize its influence. Consider the possibility that you just haven't really wrapped your head around it yet. Also, I'm gonna guess you don't know a whole lot of older people, and may be falling into the cognitive trap of thinking your experience of social demographics is reflective of the population at large.
mgh2 6y ago
You don't need to fund wars or drugs, just use Facebook PS: The devil };)
gambler 6y ago
> misinformation, conspiracy theories, and fake news It's amazing to see people casually use these words as if they still have universally meaningful definitions. Not anymore. What one half of the country considers misinformation another half of the country considers the truth. Not to mention that social media operates internationally. You can't have a meaningful discussion without admitting this and doing something to escape the semantic trap of perfect ambiguity. In other words, you first need to establish some sort of information processing principle that is unambiguously defined and everyone (or at least the wast majority of people) agrees with.
tibyat 6y ago
I learned more about Big Tobacco here than fb. Sure after fb made this guy a multimillionaire he grows a heart. Don't work for these dweebs in the first place next time...
pc86 6y ago
> like Big Tobacco's bronchodilators I used to smoke, and I also have (very mild) asthma that was diagnosed prior to me starting to smoke. I always said that I could breath better after a cigarette and people would laugh at me. It never occurred to me that of the thousands of chemicals in a cigarette some of them might be geared specifically to "help" you take in more smoke, and by extension, more air after.
- TylerE 6y ago
  There were actual "medical cigarettes" sold in the past. https://www.pharmacytimes.com/contributor/timothy-aungst-pharmd/2014/12/when-cigarettes-were-medicine-looking-back-on-a-popular-asthma-treatment https://www.pharmacytimes.com/contributor/timothy-aungst-pha...

by 4cao 6y ago

dylan604 6y ago

This bit of dialog should be the smoking gun in my opinion. Big Tobacco got taken to the woodshed over this very thing: making the product as addictive as possible. This should be the club that is used to beat Social Media platforms over their heads. As with Big Tobacco I'm sure it rings true with Social platforms as well in that not just one of them is doing it they all are.

SQueeeeeL 6y ago
They really didn't; cigarettes were allowed to flourish for decades and legal action was only taken once their popularity started to wane. Don't expect any meaningful action from your govt
- dylan604 6y ago
  Sure, Big Tobacco is still a thing. However, their actions of targeting kids/teens were curtailed. The money they were forced to spend on ad campaigns informing teens of "smoking is bad" appears to have worked. Current reports show smoking in teens has dropped significantly, including current downward trends in vaping as well. The biggest thing you go do to hurt the likes of FB,IG,Twitter would be to brand them as lame and uncool. If people don't want to use it, then it effects their bottom line. Gov't action isn't require for this, but the right campaign attacking the cool factor will motivate people away from it. (I'm currently wearing my positive thinking cap)
ALittleLight 6y ago
One problem with this is that it's easy to conflate "addictive" with "people like to use it". Should television shows been punished for cliffhangers because they hook people into seeing the next episode? Breaking Bad had an interesting plot and character progression that made me want to keep watching - are they addicting me? One person might say "We created all these statuses and features to be addictive" but it seems just as true to say "We created this stuff because people liked it and we are trying to make something people like."
- lallysingh 6y ago
  Different words with different definitions. Who cares if people like to use it if it's addictive? "Addiction is a brain disorder characterized by compulsive engagement in rewarding stimuli despite adverse consequences." Wikipedia
  - kbos87 6y ago

mdifrgechd 6y ago

Re: the comments about incendiary content and maximizing attention. This is what every news outlet tries to do. The only difference is that FB is better at it. It reminds me of the controversy about targeting ads towards protected categories (age, gender). This is something all media buys do as well, based on location, event type, but FB just has a better way. I'm not saying its right, or necessarily wrong, just that this seems to be more about them being good at something than it is about them operating in moral territory that is different than any other business.

deathgrips 6y ago
It is new to run targeted ads at protected classes. And it is new moral territory. Example: The government of Iran use pizza ads targeted towards gay people to track down their identities. Still the same as other media?
hogFeast 6y ago
The guy is complaining about incendiary content whilst repeatedly comparing Facebook to "Big Tobacco"...I think there is a lot of bombastic nonsense being thrown about. And I agree Facebook is not the first company in the world to maximise attention with this kind of content. Go back to when political pamphlets started appearing in the 16th century, it was mostly salacious bullshit about well-known public figures being possessed by the devil or drinking the blood of orphans. I am not even sure what the problem is anymore, let alone what the solution is...but this is not going to stop with Facebook, this is just a reflection of human nature (and yes, everyone has complained about this kind of "content", it ignores the fact that most humans enjoy consuming it). (I think the most problematic part of Facebook is just that so many people get their news from there and, like every human that has ever existed, they have been unable to deal with that responsibility in an even-handed way...I don't know though. They are basically a dead platform anyway, it is mainly used by old people to keep up to-date with their grandchildren afaik...I don't really know anyone who uses it, and I have never used it myself).
- anigbrowl 6y ago
  They are basically a dead platform anyway, it is mainly used by old people to keep up to-date with their grandchildren afaik...I don't really know anyone who uses it, and I have never used it myself This is terribly myopic; you don't have to like FB or want to use it to recognize its influence. Consider the possibility that you just haven't really wrapped your head around it yet. Also, I'm gonna guess you don't know a whole lot of older people, and may be falling into the cognitive trap of thinking your experience of social demographics is reflective of the population at large.

mgh2 6y ago

You don't need to fund wars or drugs, just use Facebook PS: The devil };)

gambler 6y ago

> misinformation, conspiracy theories, and fake news It's amazing to see people casually use these words as if they still have universally meaningful definitions. Not anymore. What one half of the country considers misinformation another half of the country considers the truth. Not to mention that social media operates internationally. You can't have a meaningful discussion without admitting this and doing something to escape the semantic trap of perfect ambiguity. In other words, you first need to establish some sort of information processing principle that is unambiguously defined and everyone (or at least the wast majority of people) agrees with.

tibyat 6y ago

I learned more about Big Tobacco here than fb. Sure after fb made this guy a multimillionaire he grows a heart. Don't work for these dweebs in the first place next time...

pc86 6y ago

> like Big Tobacco's bronchodilators I used to smoke, and I also have (very mild) asthma that was diagnosed prior to me starting to smoke. I always said that I could breath better after a cigarette and people would laugh at me. It never occurred to me that of the thousands of chemicals in a cigarette some of them might be geared specifically to "help" you take in more smoke, and by extension, more air after.

TylerE 6y ago
There were actual "medical cigarettes" sold in the past. https://www.pharmacytimes.com/contributor/timothy-aungst-pharmd/2014/12/when-cigarettes-were-medicine-looking-back-on-a-popular-asthma-treatment https://www.pharmacytimes.com/contributor/timothy-aungst-pha...