4 ms·

Facebook's is in an unenviable position: They tried to commoditize user-data to go after Google which back-fired. They tried long and hard to not be sole arbitr

Facebook's is in an unenviable position: They tried to commoditize user-data to go after Google which back-fired. They tried long and hard to not be sole arbitrators for content moderation and were squarely blamed for it. They do take a stance to de-platform the most powerful person in the World but are now in the cross-hairs of every conservative as well. The left-wing obviously would like them regulated to oblivion... They have always been between a rock and a hard place post IPO. Kind of gives perspective to how long Google (with Android, YouTube, Groups, GMail, GSuite, GCP) has managed to go relatively untarnished (as a brand) but Facebook couldn't.

eloisius 6y ago
It’s kind of like being hated by everyone on all sides might mean you’re an asshole or something.
- tmoravec 6y ago
  Facebook still has something like two billion of mostly happy users.
  - Mountain_Skies 6y ago
    Being locked-in isn't the same thing as being happy.
toyg 6y ago
> Kind of gives perspective to how long Google [...] has managed to go relatively untarnished I reckon that's because Google largely works on pull models: you ask for something and G gives it to you. Its services superficially appear like databases just sitting there, even if we know that's not the case. FB and Twitter, on the other hand, largely work on push models: you log on and the app will give you stuff to look at, as well as notifying you incessantly. It easier to perceive the app's own agency and priorities. In this sense, it explains why Google tends to get heat over Youtube: because it's closer to a push model, both with homepage and suggestions. Also, Google services are largely useful to get stuff done, in a way FB and Twitter are not. That gives G a big pass.
- inglor_cz 6y ago
  That is not the case of YouTube, though. YT pushes recommended videos on you. There is an interesting speech by Zeynap Tufekci on this topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFTWM7HV2UI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFTWM7HV2UI
  - toyg 6y ago
    > In this sense, it explains why Google tends to get heat over Youtube: because it's closer to a push model, both with homepage and suggestions.
- hertzrat 6y ago
  It’s impressive that they have been so successful with their mostly-pull model. It seems like a good long term strategy
XorNot 6y ago
Google is Search. Facebook is The Feed. However you frame it, Google are showing you things you want to see - it's an affirmative feed back mechanism. Facebook at best do that. Frequently they show you things you don't care about. Also things you don't want. It's an adversarial feedback mechanism. In this light it's not surprising Facebook has earned a lot more ire a lot more quickly - though not undeservedly either. On some level this still feels like you can squarely pin it on "optimizing for engagement". I highly doubt Facebook would be earning the anger it currently does if The Feed has remained a simple linear timeline. They were functionally getting into editorializing when they went with the new thing.
- esja 6y ago
  Google Search is trending in the same direction and could easily end in the same place, with search results skewed to support (or suppress) particular narratives and ideological beliefs. Look at the "ML Fairness" debates and ask yourself whether their workforce will at some point decide that they have a moral obligation not to present the raw content of the internet for a given topic, but rather to elevate the "correct" content.
  - dr-detroit 6y ago
    You get more dopamine if its only good 10% or less randomly
- p1necone 6y ago
  Google absolutely could show me whatever maximizes "engagement" instead of what I want to see too. I wouldn't use Facebook if there wasn't something I wanted to see there (and there almost isn't now, I just use it for some groups, and messenger - the feed is useless now, but it hasn't always been).
  - hertzrat 6y ago
    Interesting observation. Just imagine if google search was more engagement driven. It’s pretty great that it is only so to a small degree (in the sense of figuring out what links people are most likely to have been searching for, which is sort of a case of that positive feedback loop in engagement systems)

eloisius 6y ago

It’s kind of like being hated by everyone on all sides might mean you’re an asshole or something.

tmoravec 6y ago
Facebook still has something like two billion of mostly happy users.
- Mountain_Skies 6y ago
  Being locked-in isn't the same thing as being happy.

toyg 6y ago

> Kind of gives perspective to how long Google [...] has managed to go relatively untarnished I reckon that's because Google largely works on pull models: you ask for something and G gives it to you. Its services superficially appear like databases just sitting there, even if we know that's not the case. FB and Twitter, on the other hand, largely work on push models: you log on and the app will give you stuff to look at, as well as notifying you incessantly. It easier to perceive the app's own agency and priorities. In this sense, it explains why Google tends to get heat over Youtube: because it's closer to a push model, both with homepage and suggestions. Also, Google services are largely useful to get stuff done, in a way FB and Twitter are not. That gives G a big pass.

inglor_cz 6y ago
That is not the case of YouTube, though. YT pushes recommended videos on you. There is an interesting speech by Zeynap Tufekci on this topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFTWM7HV2UI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFTWM7HV2UI
- toyg 6y ago
  > In this sense, it explains why Google tends to get heat over Youtube: because it's closer to a push model, both with homepage and suggestions.
hertzrat 6y ago
It’s impressive that they have been so successful with their mostly-pull model. It seems like a good long term strategy

XorNot 6y ago

Google is Search. Facebook is The Feed. However you frame it, Google are showing you things you want to see - it's an affirmative feed back mechanism. Facebook at best do that. Frequently they show you things you don't care about. Also things you don't want. It's an adversarial feedback mechanism. In this light it's not surprising Facebook has earned a lot more ire a lot more quickly - though not undeservedly either. On some level this still feels like you can squarely pin it on "optimizing for engagement". I highly doubt Facebook would be earning the anger it currently does if The Feed has remained a simple linear timeline. They were functionally getting into editorializing when they went with the new thing.

esja 6y ago
Google Search is trending in the same direction and could easily end in the same place, with search results skewed to support (or suppress) particular narratives and ideological beliefs. Look at the "ML Fairness" debates and ask yourself whether their workforce will at some point decide that they have a moral obligation not to present the raw content of the internet for a given topic, but rather to elevate the "correct" content.
- dr-detroit 6y ago
  You get more dopamine if its only good 10% or less randomly
p1necone 6y ago
Google absolutely could show me whatever maximizes "engagement" instead of what I want to see too. I wouldn't use Facebook if there wasn't something I wanted to see there (and there almost isn't now, I just use it for some groups, and messenger - the feed is useless now, but it hasn't always been).
- hertzrat 6y ago
  Interesting observation. Just imagine if google search was more engagement driven. It’s pretty great that it is only so to a small degree (in the sense of figuring out what links people are most likely to have been searching for, which is sort of a case of that positive feedback loop in engagement systems)