4 ms·

Zuckerberg Throttled Traffic to Progressive News Sites

67 points by the_decider 6y ago

ncr100 6y ago
Does this imply something about discoverability without stating it outright, that Facebook Is The Internet for some web surfers?
- salmo 6y ago
  It's the new AOL!
- switch11 6y ago
  yes totally Not for the teens who have moved on Not even for the millenials But the older parents and grandparents for them Facebook is pretty much how they view the Internet And WhatsApp is taking over some countries - so there Whats App is the Internet
fred_is_fred 6y ago
It's been clear for years that Facebook is the website for your racist in-laws. I find this wildly unsurprising.
Havoc 6y ago
The ability to direct traffic in this manner seems pretty dangerous. Far more than a couple of dodgy political ads
aiyodev 6y ago
Meanwhile Facebook is being used to commit genocide in countries like Myanmar and Zuckerberg chooses to do nothing about it.
- fakedang 6y ago
  Cuckerberg sending support via thoughts and prayers. Remember how he bended over so much to seduce PoohBear? Honestly I'm surprised they didn't release a DP filter for "I stand with Myanmar against Rohingyan terrorists", or something on those lines.
  - dang 6y ago
    Please keep this kind of flamewar off HN. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
prudhvis 6y ago
This is precisely why tech companies should not the the arbiters of news. Progressive or otherwise. We should not outsource our civic responsibilities to tech companies.
- wh1t3n01s3 6y ago
  Fake news websites, misinformation and conspiracy theories are now mainstream, and democracy is failing. This is caused by big tech AIs focused on gaining engagement. So it is right for me that, in theory, the same tech companies try to stop this big mess. But personally and practically I don’t think this purpose is achievable without tossing the whole algorithms behind the engagement thing, and milder counter reactions like this will cause in long term only more drama and nothing useful....
  - bcrl 6y ago
    Some countries actually have laws that prevent broadcasters from knowingly broadcasting false news. Canada is one. It is, however, a condition that is restricted to broadcasting licenses. In the distant past when newspapers were locally owned and operated, those who owned printing presses lived in the communities that they worked in and published in. Globalization has removed that link. My theory is that losing that link has distorted the nature of publishing. It is now cheaper (more profitable) to publish false news than it is to publish well researched journalism. There is no local reputation to protect. Who needs to pay for fact checkers and editors to reach out to trusted sources to verify a story when the story itself isn't even true? Let's just throw whatever at the wall, and, hey, we can sell more ads if it blows up on social media!
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
r721 6y ago
Another discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24810831 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24810831
kbos87 6y ago
Normally I’d be inclined to believe Mother Jones and doubt Facebook but the argument here feels weak and possibly misrepresented. I don’t doubt that Mother Jones lost traffic due to an algorithm change, but implied in the article is that it was deliberate silencing of a specific progressive news source, which doesn’t appear to be backed up by any facts. Algorithm changes are always going to produce winners and losers. I agree with the argument that privately owned tech companies probably shouldn’t wield this power, but this particular instance doesn’t appear to be news.
- jmcqk6 6y ago
  >Algorithm changes are always going to produce winners and losers. The implementers have control of the algorithm. If you choose to go a certain way, then that means you are accepting the output. Why should anyone be able to hide behind "it's just an algorithm change." Now I understand that many of these machine learning algorithms lead to unpredictable and unexpected results. But again, they have found these risks acceptable by continuing to use them anyway. There should never be any hiding behind "its the algorithm, not us." You are responsible for your algorithms, whether you understand it or not. The thing I don't understand is why they continue trying these stupid algorithms. What value is there in them? It's very rare for me to encounter one of these things and go "yes, this is exactly what I wanted." More likely, they get in the way of what I want to do. Maybe I'm an outlier, but I really wish as a profession, we'd be much more frank regarding the actual results of these things.
thinkingemote 6y ago
Wasn't there a similar headline (that got flagged) saying Facebook throttled right wing news sites?
sunstone 6y ago
In return Zuck will likely get some throttling from the pending Dem administration.

67 points by the_decider 6y ago

Does this imply something about discoverability without stating it outright, that Facebook Is The Internet for some web surfers?

salmo 6y ago
It's the new AOL!
switch11 6y ago
yes totally Not for the teens who have moved on Not even for the millenials But the older parents and grandparents for them Facebook is pretty much how they view the Internet And WhatsApp is taking over some countries - so there Whats App is the Internet

fred_is_fred 6y ago

It's been clear for years that Facebook is the website for your racist in-laws. I find this wildly unsurprising.

Havoc 6y ago

The ability to direct traffic in this manner seems pretty dangerous. Far more than a couple of dodgy political ads

aiyodev 6y ago

Meanwhile Facebook is being used to commit genocide in countries like Myanmar and Zuckerberg chooses to do nothing about it.

fakedang 6y ago
Cuckerberg sending support via thoughts and prayers. Remember how he bended over so much to seduce PoohBear? Honestly I'm surprised they didn't release a DP filter for "I stand with Myanmar against Rohingyan terrorists", or something on those lines.
- dang 6y ago
  Please keep this kind of flamewar off HN. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

prudhvis 6y ago

This is precisely why tech companies should not the the arbiters of news. Progressive or otherwise. We should not outsource our civic responsibilities to tech companies.

wh1t3n01s3 6y ago
Fake news websites, misinformation and conspiracy theories are now mainstream, and democracy is failing. This is caused by big tech AIs focused on gaining engagement. So it is right for me that, in theory, the same tech companies try to stop this big mess. But personally and practically I don’t think this purpose is achievable without tossing the whole algorithms behind the engagement thing, and milder counter reactions like this will cause in long term only more drama and nothing useful....
- bcrl 6y ago
  Some countries actually have laws that prevent broadcasters from knowingly broadcasting false news. Canada is one. It is, however, a condition that is restricted to broadcasting licenses. In the distant past when newspapers were locally owned and operated, those who owned printing presses lived in the communities that they worked in and published in. Globalization has removed that link. My theory is that losing that link has distorted the nature of publishing. It is now cheaper (more profitable) to publish false news than it is to publish well researched journalism. There is no local reputation to protect. Who needs to pay for fact checkers and editors to reach out to trusted sources to verify a story when the story itself isn't even true? Let's just throw whatever at the wall, and, hey, we can sell more ads if it blows up on social media!
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

r721 6y ago

Another discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24810831 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24810831

kbos87 6y ago

Normally I’d be inclined to believe Mother Jones and doubt Facebook but the argument here feels weak and possibly misrepresented. I don’t doubt that Mother Jones lost traffic due to an algorithm change, but implied in the article is that it was deliberate silencing of a specific progressive news source, which doesn’t appear to be backed up by any facts. Algorithm changes are always going to produce winners and losers. I agree with the argument that privately owned tech companies probably shouldn’t wield this power, but this particular instance doesn’t appear to be news.

jmcqk6 6y ago
>Algorithm changes are always going to produce winners and losers. The implementers have control of the algorithm. If you choose to go a certain way, then that means you are accepting the output. Why should anyone be able to hide behind "it's just an algorithm change." Now I understand that many of these machine learning algorithms lead to unpredictable and unexpected results. But again, they have found these risks acceptable by continuing to use them anyway. There should never be any hiding behind "its the algorithm, not us." You are responsible for your algorithms, whether you understand it or not. The thing I don't understand is why they continue trying these stupid algorithms. What value is there in them? It's very rare for me to encounter one of these things and go "yes, this is exactly what I wanted." More likely, they get in the way of what I want to do. Maybe I'm an outlier, but I really wish as a profession, we'd be much more frank regarding the actual results of these things.

thinkingemote 6y ago

Wasn't there a similar headline (that got flagged) saying Facebook throttled right wing news sites?

sunstone 6y ago

In return Zuck will likely get some throttling from the pending Dem administration.