4 ms·

Emotional content elicits a larger response, says the article with the provocative headline. There is nothing new here. Why does the responsibility never lie w

Emotional content elicits a larger response, says the article with the provocative headline. There is nothing new here. Why does the responsibility never lie with the people who say these things, only where they say it? It reminds of of the Columbine shootings, where many articles where written about the violent video games that must of inspired the shooters to do it. Those arguments sucked then and they still suck now.

bjt2n3904 6y ago
This, right here. In 2016, when Facebook was charged with hosting "fake news", their response should have been "It's your fault for believing everything you read on the internet." When Facebook replied, "We accept responsibility, and we will do better", they spelled their own doom.
- NickGott 6y ago
  "It's your fault for believing everything you read on the internet." I disagree, it's our fault as a society for not allocating proper resources towards education. You can't expect people to understand critical thinking, media/source analysis, etc. if no-one ever taught it to them. Now, Facebook capitalized on that societal failure point and developed an algorithm that exploited individuals who lack that critical thinking skill by shoving progressively angrier and more unhinged content in front of their eyeballs, and recommending them groups of extreme individuals, therefore normalizing their way of thinking. They did this because they realized content that causes anger, outrage, and fear is extremely effective at keeping people clicking, scrolling, reading, and overall "engaged" which means more data, more ads shown, more money. They basically took the Fox News model and injected pure racing fuel into it. This, like most issues, cannot be explained by one specific cause, but Facebook absolutely shares the blame.
  - MrMan 6y ago
    Critical thinking is not an effective antidote to propaganda especially that which is spread peer-to-peer. It sounds good and is an intuitive concept but it's not enough to rely on critical thinking.
  - Siira 6y ago
    Perhaps it’s less about education and more about innate tendencies of people towards shaping their beliefs in a way that belittles their enemies.
isbadawi 6y ago
Here is a question posed by the article: IT’S HARD TO DETERMINE the extent to which Facebook caused this hyperpartisanship or simply stumbled into it. Did Facebook cultivate more extreme beliefs or simply take what was already simmering and thrust it into the open? Mr. McGee argued that he always thought this way. Before Facebook, he said, he watched conspiracy-laden videos on YouTube. Facebook merely helped him find his people. “People are engaging me, encouraging me to share what I think, but these are the inner workings of my mind,” he said. “I’ve been feeling this way for years. That’s why it’s so easy for me to make posts, because I’ve been suppressing this stuff forever.” And yet when he talks about Facebook, he focuses on algorithms and optimization, not community or ideology. It’s worth considering: Would he be attempting to influence others so forcefully without Facebook’s incentives?

bjt2n3904 6y ago

This, right here. In 2016, when Facebook was charged with hosting "fake news", their response should have been "It's your fault for believing everything you read on the internet." When Facebook replied, "We accept responsibility, and we will do better", they spelled their own doom.

NickGott 6y ago
"It's your fault for believing everything you read on the internet." I disagree, it's our fault as a society for not allocating proper resources towards education. You can't expect people to understand critical thinking, media/source analysis, etc. if no-one ever taught it to them. Now, Facebook capitalized on that societal failure point and developed an algorithm that exploited individuals who lack that critical thinking skill by shoving progressively angrier and more unhinged content in front of their eyeballs, and recommending them groups of extreme individuals, therefore normalizing their way of thinking. They did this because they realized content that causes anger, outrage, and fear is extremely effective at keeping people clicking, scrolling, reading, and overall "engaged" which means more data, more ads shown, more money. They basically took the Fox News model and injected pure racing fuel into it. This, like most issues, cannot be explained by one specific cause, but Facebook absolutely shares the blame.
- MrMan 6y ago
  Critical thinking is not an effective antidote to propaganda especially that which is spread peer-to-peer. It sounds good and is an intuitive concept but it's not enough to rely on critical thinking.
- Siira 6y ago
  Perhaps it’s less about education and more about innate tendencies of people towards shaping their beliefs in a way that belittles their enemies.

isbadawi 6y ago

Here is a question posed by the article: IT’S HARD TO DETERMINE the extent to which Facebook caused this hyperpartisanship or simply stumbled into it. Did Facebook cultivate more extreme beliefs or simply take what was already simmering and thrust it into the open? Mr. McGee argued that he always thought this way. Before Facebook, he said, he watched conspiracy-laden videos on YouTube. Facebook merely helped him find his people. “People are engaging me, encouraging me to share what I think, but these are the inner workings of my mind,” he said. “I’ve been feeling this way for years. That’s why it’s so easy for me to make posts, because I’ve been suppressing this stuff forever.” And yet when he talks about Facebook, he focuses on algorithms and optimization, not community or ideology. It’s worth considering: Would he be attempting to influence others so forcefully without Facebook’s incentives?