3 ms·

Well they didn't develop the platform specifically for spreading radical/violent content. They build a generic platform for spreading thoughts among friends, an

by umvi 6y ago

Well they didn't develop the platform specifically for spreading radical/violent content. They build a generic platform for spreading thoughts among friends, and racist/violent people used the generic platform to spread their thoughts.

tolbish 6y ago
Not quite. They tweaked the way it was run to keep people addicted.
- 2pEXgD0fZ5cF 6y ago
  That is the thing, many argue as if Facebook is a flat, neutral forum, and leave out the whole big algorithmic blackbox it entails. In reality there are no chronological timelines and the regular user is pushed towards the most rage inducing (or as Facebook employees probably euphemize it: "most engaging") content and group recommendations Facebook can apply to an individual. Facebook was very much an actor in this, not some mere communication infrastructure. Facebook wasn't "warped" by malicious actors, it fanned the flames and by doing so nurtured their hatred and multiplied their reach, all to get the users as addicted as possible to this endless loop. (The same goes for Twitter and Google/Youtube too, of course)
nr2x 6y ago
Philip Morris didn’t intentionally develop a system to spread lung cancer, and yet they did.
- redisman 6y ago
  It's not a bad metaphor since PM and FB both did develop their addiction systems on purpose. Cigarettes are not just dried tobacco leaf, there was a ton of R&D to identify and add chemicals that make them extremely addicting. Same with FB, they have optimized for outrage culture etc. - whatever brings the most "engagement".
riscy 6y ago
The key thing is that they built a reward system into sharing each of those thoughts, which enables an addiction for acceptance from users on the platform. Facebook’s engagement systems / algorithms feed on these addictions. As the article discusses, this causes users to radicalize their posts to garner more attention.

by umvi 6y ago

tolbish 6y ago

Not quite. They tweaked the way it was run to keep people addicted.

2pEXgD0fZ5cF 6y ago
That is the thing, many argue as if Facebook is a flat, neutral forum, and leave out the whole big algorithmic blackbox it entails. In reality there are no chronological timelines and the regular user is pushed towards the most rage inducing (or as Facebook employees probably euphemize it: "most engaging") content and group recommendations Facebook can apply to an individual. Facebook was very much an actor in this, not some mere communication infrastructure. Facebook wasn't "warped" by malicious actors, it fanned the flames and by doing so nurtured their hatred and multiplied their reach, all to get the users as addicted as possible to this endless loop. (The same goes for Twitter and Google/Youtube too, of course)

nr2x 6y ago

Philip Morris didn’t intentionally develop a system to spread lung cancer, and yet they did.

redisman 6y ago
It's not a bad metaphor since PM and FB both did develop their addiction systems on purpose. Cigarettes are not just dried tobacco leaf, there was a ton of R&D to identify and add chemicals that make them extremely addicting. Same with FB, they have optimized for outrage culture etc. - whatever brings the most "engagement".

riscy 6y ago

The key thing is that they built a reward system into sharing each of those thoughts, which enables an addiction for acceptance from users on the platform. Facebook’s engagement systems / algorithms feed on these addictions. As the article discusses, this causes users to radicalize their posts to garner more attention.