4 ms·

Is it a Facebook problem or is it a people problem? To me Facebook doesn't really seem that much different than it was when you needed a .edu email address to s

by ng12 6y ago

Is it a Facebook problem or is it a people problem? To me Facebook doesn't really seem that much different than it was when you needed a .edu email address to sign up. Social media hasn't changed, it's just used by a wider group which includes some minority who chose to interact with content some people don't like.

ssss11 6y ago
Facebook hasnt changed since the start? I completely disagree. What fb was at the start was actually useful - simply a way to write a status update to your friends and see what they have been up to in chronological order. None of the tracking or manipulative bull. What it has become (and rapidly since going public) is an attention-seeking addiction portal trying to gain every dollar it can from clicks. Full of ads, showing you only the friend status updates it wants to show you from its blackbox algorithm, inferring what your interests are based on whatever you click on, adding on tons and tons of functionality to keep you in the bubble (events, marketplace and so on) It is very different to what it began as.
Karellen 6y ago
I think it's a Facebook problem. Facebook, and other social media, incentivise "engagement". Content that makes people angry and get into bile-filled back-and-forth screaming matches with each other is fucking amazing for engagement, so Facebook et al push it to the top of peoples' feeds in order to get them to keep clicking, and to keep serving them ads. Maybe Facebook hasn't really changed since it began, and "maximising engagement" has always been their main priority. But it's probably a pretty safe bet that they've put a lot of effort into that, and got much, much better at it in the last 15 years. From the article: > In July, Nick Clegg, a former Deputy Prime Minister of the U.K. who is now a top flack at Facebook, published a piece on AdAge.com and on the company’s official blog titled “Facebook Does Not Benefit from Hate,” in which he wrote, “There is no incentive for us to do anything but remove it.” I would disagree. I submit that hate drives engagement, engagement drives eyeballs on adverts, and eyeballs on adverts drives $$$$, which absolutely benefits Facebook, and gives them an incentive to keep hate on the platform.
- threatofrain 6y ago
  Where is this bad, addictive content coming from? Isn't that all content from a list of people or businesses that you green-list yourself?
  - josephg 6y ago
    Sure; but if facebook shows me 1% of all the content from people I follow, it exerts a huge amount of editorial power. And it doesn't use that editorial power to serve users. It uses that power to keep people addicted to the site so they can sell more advertisements. The fact that my friendships are weaponized doesn't make facebook any less culpable. I'm a pretty nice guy. But if you made a supercut of 1% of what I say in a day, you could tell any story you like. It would be my words, but its your narrative.
    - threatofrain 6y ago
      What is the extent of FB's ability to craft narrative? What is the most egregious example of FB editorializing? It should be easy for people to find examples online with over 2B users.
      - bleepblorp 6y ago
        The degree of confidence in your dismissal is odd given how prominently Facebook's emotional manipulation experiment has been covered by major market media outlets. See, e.g.: https://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/30/technology/facebook-tinkers-with-users-emotions-in-news-feed-experiment-stirring-outcry.html https://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/30/technology/facebook-tinke... https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jun/29/facebook-users-emotions-news-feeds https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jun/29/facebook-... https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jul/02/facebook-apologises-psychological-experiments-on-users https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jul/02/facebook-...
      - kthejoker2 6y ago
        Did you not RTFA? Read the section on Britain First again. Its entire premise is Facebook has created an enormous amount of carveouts and tolerances for hate speech and divisive content to protect revenue and growth.
izacus 6y ago
It's a people problem that is being majorly amplified by Facebook. Propaganda always existed and political parties always paid for billboards, ads and submarine articles to mislead people. This dates back centuries (remember how "snake oil salesman" term came to be?). Facebook however makes the reach of these propaganda articles larger by order of the magnitude, it makes it utterly cheap to reach a vast amount of audience with any kind of message. It exposes the rotten core of society, where demagogues and liars can be hugely successful and where truth isn't really all that important. And then amplifies this until things start breaking. So anyone who puts blame solely on Facebook is wrong. But Facebook also isn't the naive neutral entity here just like a person using a fan to spread fires isn't.

by ng12 6y ago

ssss11 6y ago

Facebook hasnt changed since the start? I completely disagree. What fb was at the start was actually useful - simply a way to write a status update to your friends and see what they have been up to in chronological order. None of the tracking or manipulative bull. What it has become (and rapidly since going public) is an attention-seeking addiction portal trying to gain every dollar it can from clicks. Full of ads, showing you only the friend status updates it wants to show you from its blackbox algorithm, inferring what your interests are based on whatever you click on, adding on tons and tons of functionality to keep you in the bubble (events, marketplace and so on) It is very different to what it began as.

Karellen 6y ago

I think it's a Facebook problem. Facebook, and other social media, incentivise "engagement". Content that makes people angry and get into bile-filled back-and-forth screaming matches with each other is fucking amazing for engagement, so Facebook et al push it to the top of peoples' feeds in order to get them to keep clicking, and to keep serving them ads. Maybe Facebook hasn't really changed since it began, and "maximising engagement" has always been their main priority. But it's probably a pretty safe bet that they've put a lot of effort into that, and got much, much better at it in the last 15 years. From the article: > In July, Nick Clegg, a former Deputy Prime Minister of the U.K. who is now a top flack at Facebook, published a piece on AdAge.com and on the company’s official blog titled “Facebook Does Not Benefit from Hate,” in which he wrote, “There is no incentive for us to do anything but remove it.” I would disagree. I submit that hate drives engagement, engagement drives eyeballs on adverts, and eyeballs on adverts drives $$$$, which absolutely benefits Facebook, and gives them an incentive to keep hate on the platform.

threatofrain 6y ago
Where is this bad, addictive content coming from? Isn't that all content from a list of people or businesses that you green-list yourself?
- josephg 6y ago
  Sure; but if facebook shows me 1% of all the content from people I follow, it exerts a huge amount of editorial power. And it doesn't use that editorial power to serve users. It uses that power to keep people addicted to the site so they can sell more advertisements. The fact that my friendships are weaponized doesn't make facebook any less culpable. I'm a pretty nice guy. But if you made a supercut of 1% of what I say in a day, you could tell any story you like. It would be my words, but its your narrative.
  - threatofrain 6y ago
    What is the extent of FB's ability to craft narrative? What is the most egregious example of FB editorializing? It should be easy for people to find examples online with over 2B users.
    - bleepblorp 6y ago
      The degree of confidence in your dismissal is odd given how prominently Facebook's emotional manipulation experiment has been covered by major market media outlets. See, e.g.: https://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/30/technology/facebook-tinkers-with-users-emotions-in-news-feed-experiment-stirring-outcry.html https://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/30/technology/facebook-tinke... https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jun/29/facebook-users-emotions-news-feeds https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jun/29/facebook-... https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jul/02/facebook-apologises-psychological-experiments-on-users https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jul/02/facebook-...
    - kthejoker2 6y ago
      Did you not RTFA? Read the section on Britain First again. Its entire premise is Facebook has created an enormous amount of carveouts and tolerances for hate speech and divisive content to protect revenue and growth.

izacus 6y ago

It's a people problem that is being majorly amplified by Facebook. Propaganda always existed and political parties always paid for billboards, ads and submarine articles to mislead people. This dates back centuries (remember how "snake oil salesman" term came to be?). Facebook however makes the reach of these propaganda articles larger by order of the magnitude, it makes it utterly cheap to reach a vast amount of audience with any kind of message. It exposes the rotten core of society, where demagogues and liars can be hugely successful and where truth isn't really all that important. And then amplifies this until things start breaking. So anyone who puts blame solely on Facebook is wrong. But Facebook also isn't the naive neutral entity here just like a person using a fan to spread fires isn't.