4 ms·

> 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 w

> 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.
- dwiel 6y ago
  Let's say a food manufacturer finds a chemical that is tasteless but addictive and starts adding it to all their food. Would you also argue that this is very clearly food the people want to consume?
  - visarga 6y ago
    A compelling analogy. We need tools to monitor what they put into our feeds.
    - aethertron 6y ago
      I like the food analogy, let's extend it. We have ingredients lists on packaged processed food, but we have more than that: the ability to buy ingredients, learn recipes, make recipes, and cook. We should have the ability to put what we choose (and omit what we don't) in our feeds.
      - therealx 6y ago
        Packaged food doesn't have to list items if they are in small enough quantity. Many potential addicting substances would be under that allotment. We should have the ability to control it all, though.
- themaninthedark 6y ago
  If people don't like smoking, they would quit.
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.

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.
dwiel 6y ago
Let's say a food manufacturer finds a chemical that is tasteless but addictive and starts adding it to all their food. Would you also argue that this is very clearly food the people want to consume?
- visarga 6y ago
  A compelling analogy. We need tools to monitor what they put into our feeds.
  - aethertron 6y ago
    I like the food analogy, let's extend it. We have ingredients lists on packaged processed food, but we have more than that: the ability to buy ingredients, learn recipes, make recipes, and cook. We should have the ability to put what we choose (and omit what we don't) in our feeds.
    - therealx 6y ago
      Packaged food doesn't have to list items if they are in small enough quantity. Many potential addicting substances would be under that allotment. We should have the ability to control it all, though.
themaninthedark 6y ago
If people don't like smoking, they would quit.

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.