5 ms·

One thing I still don’t quite understand is how a system like this one can develop when the people developing it almost certainly are completely opposed to thes

One thing I still don’t quite understand is how a system like this one can develop when the people developing it almost certainly are completely opposed to these ideas on a personal political level. I almost feel like it was an excess of idealism and belief in “the free market of ideas” -as well as the idea that Facebook should remain a neutral party at all cost- that led to overcompensating in the wrong direction, and the current situation.

JumpCrisscross 6y ago
> how a system like this one can develop when the people developing it almost certainly are completely opposed to these ideas on a personal political level Facebook pays well.
scandox 6y ago
Most people's political beliefs and ideas are simply something they wear, like a piece of clothing. If you asked them to change into different clothes for a specific purpose they will usually gladly do so without a moment's hesitation, if the purpose makes sense to them. The daily context of our lives and what we need to be getting on with is vastly more powerful than anything else.
ahartmetz 6y ago
Because of the kind of content that drives engagement, optimizing for engagement is not being a neutral party. And censoring content costs money. So Facebook has at least two financial motives.
beagle3 6y ago
It is hard for a person to understand something, when their salary depends on not understanding it. —-Upton Sinclair
cheschire 6y ago
Seems like you understand the situation perfectly, based on your second line.
islon 6y ago
It is difficult to get a man to keep his moral compass, when his salary depends upon his not keeping it
irjustin 6y ago
I think the top comment has it right. The result is actually an emergent property of "increase attention/engagement to the max". This is actually an algorithmic result that was just one of many possibilities. So, I don't blame the developers 100%. Forest/trees problem. What I do blame is Zuckerberg & the Board's decision to not 180' on the algorithm and lower engagement now that we know this is the result - money & power.
- fakedang 6y ago
  Let's be honest here. Facebook for Zuckerberg is just a political tool for him now. Earlier, he wanted to run for President, which is obviously at severe conflict with the FB board's stated vision. Now he has realized that he can just twist any nation into his image. Money and power, at the end of the day.
  - croon 6y ago
    I'm unsure of his politics, but if I'm understanding them correctly, he's failing quite miserably if that's what he's trying.
    - fakedang 6y ago
      Not really. On the contrary, he's succeeding quite well - being on good terms with Facebook is now essential for any government seeking to get reelected, or seeking to stay in power (in the case of dictatorships). Zuckerberg wants to outwardly lean Democrat, but inside, it's all about maintaining money and power. Just check his natural progression - first laughing at the idiocy of his Harvard peers for sharing their personal details out in the open, all the way to very recently trying to launch his own crypto coin, which would have enabled his "alliance" to gather data on spending habits of its users.
- cblconfederate 6y ago
  I m sure they have performed their experiments. They know they can't lower engagement, these are positive feedback loops, and attention is a zero-sum economy. If they give up even a tiny bit, they 'll lose out to competitors. Subjects must remain fixated until the end.
truculent 6y ago
The people at the top believe in these ideas and our ability to organise and exercise our collective power is so withered and atrophied that people feel incapable of doing anything except going along with it
tester34 6y ago
I think professionals should be able to separate work and their private life.
raxxorrax 6y ago
I don't think so. We didn't have the free market of ideas. Instead we had engagement optimized content. These approaches are completely different. Most other platforms and forums had a free market of ideas and it didn't lead to problems. edit: Also, the demographic might be relevant.
throw0101a 6y ago
> One thing I still don’t quite understand is how a system like this one can develop when the people developing it almost certainly are completely opposed to these ideas on a personal political level. $$$ Does it have to be more complicated than that?
- Jommi 6y ago
  Seems like pretty bad long term $$$ move if it results in FB getting dismantled or regulated to hell.
  - throw0101a 6y ago
    Zuck may have cashed out by then.
    - Jommi 6y ago
      You really think he's ready to give up that power?
cat199 6y ago
> “the free market of ideas” -as well as the idea that Facebook should remain a neutral party at all cost were abandoned by facebook the moment non-customizable feed algorithms replaced chronology, not after the resulting system lost whatever 'objectivity' remained. this, and not the resultant 'gaming' of the implicitly-clickbait-biased platform, are the root cause 'that led to overcompensating in the wrong direction, and the current situation.'
gusfoo 6y ago
> One thing I still don’t quite understand is how a system like this one can develop when the people developing it almost certainly are completely opposed to these ideas on a personal political level. It is, as they say, giving people what they want. People get genuine pleasure from the feeling of outrage and, better still, righteous anger. And creators of content get paid by the ad industry more from outraging people than drily informing them of the fact of the matter.

JumpCrisscross 6y ago

> how a system like this one can develop when the people developing it almost certainly are completely opposed to these ideas on a personal political level Facebook pays well.

scandox 6y ago

Most people's political beliefs and ideas are simply something they wear, like a piece of clothing. If you asked them to change into different clothes for a specific purpose they will usually gladly do so without a moment's hesitation, if the purpose makes sense to them. The daily context of our lives and what we need to be getting on with is vastly more powerful than anything else.

ahartmetz 6y ago

Because of the kind of content that drives engagement, optimizing for engagement is not being a neutral party. And censoring content costs money. So Facebook has at least two financial motives.

beagle3 6y ago

It is hard for a person to understand something, when their salary depends on not understanding it. —-Upton Sinclair

cheschire 6y ago

Seems like you understand the situation perfectly, based on your second line.

islon 6y ago

It is difficult to get a man to keep his moral compass, when his salary depends upon his not keeping it

irjustin 6y ago

I think the top comment has it right. The result is actually an emergent property of "increase attention/engagement to the max". This is actually an algorithmic result that was just one of many possibilities. So, I don't blame the developers 100%. Forest/trees problem. What I do blame is Zuckerberg & the Board's decision to not 180' on the algorithm and lower engagement now that we know this is the result - money & power.

fakedang 6y ago
Let's be honest here. Facebook for Zuckerberg is just a political tool for him now. Earlier, he wanted to run for President, which is obviously at severe conflict with the FB board's stated vision. Now he has realized that he can just twist any nation into his image. Money and power, at the end of the day.
- croon 6y ago
  I'm unsure of his politics, but if I'm understanding them correctly, he's failing quite miserably if that's what he's trying.
  - fakedang 6y ago
    Not really. On the contrary, he's succeeding quite well - being on good terms with Facebook is now essential for any government seeking to get reelected, or seeking to stay in power (in the case of dictatorships). Zuckerberg wants to outwardly lean Democrat, but inside, it's all about maintaining money and power. Just check his natural progression - first laughing at the idiocy of his Harvard peers for sharing their personal details out in the open, all the way to very recently trying to launch his own crypto coin, which would have enabled his "alliance" to gather data on spending habits of its users.
cblconfederate 6y ago
I m sure they have performed their experiments. They know they can't lower engagement, these are positive feedback loops, and attention is a zero-sum economy. If they give up even a tiny bit, they 'll lose out to competitors. Subjects must remain fixated until the end.

truculent 6y ago

The people at the top believe in these ideas and our ability to organise and exercise our collective power is so withered and atrophied that people feel incapable of doing anything except going along with it

tester34 6y ago

I think professionals should be able to separate work and their private life.

raxxorrax 6y ago

I don't think so. We didn't have the free market of ideas. Instead we had engagement optimized content. These approaches are completely different. Most other platforms and forums had a free market of ideas and it didn't lead to problems. edit: Also, the demographic might be relevant.

throw0101a 6y ago

Jommi 6y ago
Seems like pretty bad long term $$$ move if it results in FB getting dismantled or regulated to hell.
- throw0101a 6y ago
  Zuck may have cashed out by then.
  - Jommi 6y ago
    You really think he's ready to give up that power?

cat199 6y ago

> “the free market of ideas” -as well as the idea that Facebook should remain a neutral party at all cost were abandoned by facebook the moment non-customizable feed algorithms replaced chronology, not after the resulting system lost whatever 'objectivity' remained. this, and not the resultant 'gaming' of the implicitly-clickbait-biased platform, are the root cause 'that led to overcompensating in the wrong direction, and the current situation.'

gusfoo 6y ago

> One thing I still don’t quite understand is how a system like this one can develop when the people developing it almost certainly are completely opposed to these ideas on a personal political level. It is, as they say, giving people what they want. People get genuine pleasure from the feeling of outrage and, better still, righteous anger. And creators of content get paid by the ad industry more from outraging people than drily informing them of the fact of the matter.