34 ms·

I don't understand the obsession some people have with ranked newsfeeds. I don't see what's wrong with showing people content they want. What content that is al

I don't understand the obsession some people have with ranked newsfeeds. I don't see what's wrong with showing people content they want. What content that is always depends on the user themselves. If they've liked a lot of horrible stuff before, they'll get more horrible stuff, if they've liked a lot of thoughtful stuff before, they'll get more thoughtful stuff.

solaarphunk 6y ago
The issue is that people are not rational actors, and their emotions can be manipulated into forming new habits. In this case, facebook's goal is maximizing time spent on site. They know if they get you into a state of emotional flow, you'll stay there for much longer. That is the purpose of ranked newsfeed. Companies just make the "relevance" argument, because it's not wrong, it's just not the whole story. Specifically, if you had a passing interest in a controversial topic, the algorithm will make sure to sink its barbs into you, and exploit you emotionally. This is especially real for older people who didn't grow up with the internet, or people who are blind to this issue. These two groups haven't learned to moderate their emotions and question the nature, or source, of the content.
ViViDboarder 6y ago
> I don't see what's wrong with showing people content they want. Showing them what who wants? The users? That’s be great, but today they are trained to show what the company wants, and the company wants to keep you on the site as long as possible to generate ad clicks. It’s designed for making you spiral into a topic.
- nmfisher 6y ago
  If the users didn't like, they'd log off. Facebook optimizes to avoid that scenario. I know you don't like it, but this very clearly is content that people want to consume.
  - yorwba 6y ago
    No, if users didn't like anything they see on Facebook, they'd log off. Facebook optimizes to make money and they can't make money if people leave, so they try to avoid that scenario. But that doesn't mean all content is something people want to see, because Facebook can't make money either if users only consume content that doesn't make Facebook money, so they try to avoid that scenario. The profit-maximizing strategy is to show users a mixture of content they like (to keep them around) and money-making content, preferably all jumbled together so people can't easily tell the difference. (The same calculation is behind Google deemphasizing the difference between paid search ads and actual results.)
    - mikkergp 6y ago
      This applies to all media though. I love the discovery channel but not all commercials. I love “Life Below Zero” but it’s filmed in a way to maximize the chance you turn to it when channel Surfing, and getting you to watch ads. it’s not optimized for long term viewing.
      - nafey 6y ago
        It's not the same in two key ways: 1. Not everyone can broadcast on discovery channel. 2. Not every click/scroll/interaction is recorded by discovery channel. Include these two ingredients and you essentially get YouTube.
      - therealx 6y ago
        I really hate that style of editing. Does it have a name? The big signs include quick cuts of content you had just seen in order to summarize the story till then, previews before commurcial breaks, pre-starting the next episode (starting the next one before a break), and so many more annoying things. The worst is when you binging it without ads - there's only 15 minutes of new content for the full duration.
  - Qwertious 6y ago
    "If the users didn't like, they'd log off." Because people are perfectly rational and will never do something when they aren't particularly enjoying it and know is bad for them.
- mikkergp 6y ago
  "I wrote this song so people would listen to it and I would make money." "I made this TV show so people would watch it and I'd make money." It seems like we're trying to force the input to be wrong as opposed to just acknowledging that the output is wrong. Facebook is doing the same "capitalistically moral" thing everyone else is doing, building something people want so that they make money. The input doesn't have to be "theoretically wrong" for the output to still be wrong. Good intentions and all that.
hezag 6y ago
> I don't see what's wrong with showing people content they want. But ranked newsfeeds are not about showing people content they want, but about showing people content that will generate more revenue for the company.
themaninthedark 6y ago
What is content I want? I might think I am interested in learning about how 5G spreads COVID or about Vaccines causing autism but both of those things are fictions. The idea that the web needs to be helpful and start showing me more of something I have looked at or even searched for needs to die. Just because I geolocate as being in Japan does not mean I want my search results in Japanese first, especially when I specify English(Google). Just because I clicked on a funny looking mousepad that has an ass on it does not mean that I wan advertisements and suggestions for similar things for the next several months(Amazon). In the name of user engagement and trying to figure out how to capture revenue, I feel that tech is losing sight of how to be a good service. We all railed on Microsoft when Clippy would patronizingly pop up to try and help you write a letter but think we have improved service when we search for one thing and have it show up a number of competing products. Sorry for being all over the place, I agree that we should be showing people what they ask for but also think that is as far as it need to go. Don't follow them down the street and shove more of the same in their faces.
pjc50 6y ago
> If they've liked a lot of horrible stuff before, they'll get more horrible stuff, This is the problem here. It's like gambling addictions: on the one hand the gambler seems to be doing things voluntarily, on the other hand an entire industry is trying to trick them into coming back.

solaarphunk 6y ago

The issue is that people are not rational actors, and their emotions can be manipulated into forming new habits. In this case, facebook's goal is maximizing time spent on site. They know if they get you into a state of emotional flow, you'll stay there for much longer. That is the purpose of ranked newsfeed. Companies just make the "relevance" argument, because it's not wrong, it's just not the whole story. Specifically, if you had a passing interest in a controversial topic, the algorithm will make sure to sink its barbs into you, and exploit you emotionally. This is especially real for older people who didn't grow up with the internet, or people who are blind to this issue. These two groups haven't learned to moderate their emotions and question the nature, or source, of the content.

ViViDboarder 6y ago

> I don't see what's wrong with showing people content they want. Showing them what who wants? The users? That’s be great, but today they are trained to show what the company wants, and the company wants to keep you on the site as long as possible to generate ad clicks. It’s designed for making you spiral into a topic.

nmfisher 6y ago
If the users didn't like, they'd log off. Facebook optimizes to avoid that scenario. I know you don't like it, but this very clearly is content that people want to consume.
- yorwba 6y ago
  No, if users didn't like anything they see on Facebook, they'd log off. Facebook optimizes to make money and they can't make money if people leave, so they try to avoid that scenario. But that doesn't mean all content is something people want to see, because Facebook can't make money either if users only consume content that doesn't make Facebook money, so they try to avoid that scenario. The profit-maximizing strategy is to show users a mixture of content they like (to keep them around) and money-making content, preferably all jumbled together so people can't easily tell the difference. (The same calculation is behind Google deemphasizing the difference between paid search ads and actual results.)
  - mikkergp 6y ago
    This applies to all media though. I love the discovery channel but not all commercials. I love “Life Below Zero” but it’s filmed in a way to maximize the chance you turn to it when channel Surfing, and getting you to watch ads. it’s not optimized for long term viewing.
    - nafey 6y ago
      It's not the same in two key ways: 1. Not everyone can broadcast on discovery channel. 2. Not every click/scroll/interaction is recorded by discovery channel. Include these two ingredients and you essentially get YouTube.
    - therealx 6y ago
      I really hate that style of editing. Does it have a name? The big signs include quick cuts of content you had just seen in order to summarize the story till then, previews before commurcial breaks, pre-starting the next episode (starting the next one before a break), and so many more annoying things. The worst is when you binging it without ads - there's only 15 minutes of new content for the full duration.
- Qwertious 6y ago
  "If the users didn't like, they'd log off." Because people are perfectly rational and will never do something when they aren't particularly enjoying it and know is bad for them.
mikkergp 6y ago
"I wrote this song so people would listen to it and I would make money." "I made this TV show so people would watch it and I'd make money." It seems like we're trying to force the input to be wrong as opposed to just acknowledging that the output is wrong. Facebook is doing the same "capitalistically moral" thing everyone else is doing, building something people want so that they make money. The input doesn't have to be "theoretically wrong" for the output to still be wrong. Good intentions and all that.

hezag 6y ago

> I don't see what's wrong with showing people content they want. But ranked newsfeeds are not about showing people content they want, but about showing people content that will generate more revenue for the company.

themaninthedark 6y ago

What is content I want? I might think I am interested in learning about how 5G spreads COVID or about Vaccines causing autism but both of those things are fictions. The idea that the web needs to be helpful and start showing me more of something I have looked at or even searched for needs to die. Just because I geolocate as being in Japan does not mean I want my search results in Japanese first, especially when I specify English(Google). Just because I clicked on a funny looking mousepad that has an ass on it does not mean that I wan advertisements and suggestions for similar things for the next several months(Amazon). In the name of user engagement and trying to figure out how to capture revenue, I feel that tech is losing sight of how to be a good service. We all railed on Microsoft when Clippy would patronizingly pop up to try and help you write a letter but think we have improved service when we search for one thing and have it show up a number of competing products. Sorry for being all over the place, I agree that we should be showing people what they ask for but also think that is as far as it need to go. Don't follow them down the street and shove more of the same in their faces.

pjc50 6y ago

> If they've liked a lot of horrible stuff before, they'll get more horrible stuff, This is the problem here. It's like gambling addictions: on the one hand the gambler seems to be doing things voluntarily, on the other hand an entire industry is trying to trick them into coming back.