4 ms·

I haven't read the bill, but this looks like a huge win. FB has abused our brain chemistry with addictive content. Their platform makes discussions more impuls

I haven't read the bill, but this looks like a huge win. FB has abused our brain chemistry with addictive content. Their platform makes discussions more impulsive, passionate and careless not unlike any other addictive substance. People crave "the goods" ie browsing their bite sized feeds, and neglect the responsibility of actually learning about the news. Not unlike how if you're addicted to sugar/unhealthy foods you don't want your veggies. This affects not only customers but news organizations. News orgs are forced to twist the truth to make their content more addictive in order to survive. FB's double think comes out in this article. They attribute people's interest in the news to their platform. When in reality they almost certainly would have reached the news independently, and FB is an addictive and unnecessary additive to people's life. I draw two conclusions from this: 1. FB is scared. The Australian government has found a weak point that causes FB to take a major hit to the breadth of their platform. 2. FB can no longer weaponize headlines. People will still discuss news in their own words or using fake sources, instead of impulse sharing actual news headlines. Headline quality will improve, meanwhile FB will remain a challenging place to discuss. People will now have the time to recognize headline quality and may even read the news without having the impulsive and addictive sharing option. This is a hit to FB's reality bending brand. FB offers addictive and impulsive options for communicating, but they want us to think FB is an essential part of communicating. By not being allowed to share on FB, the addictive option is removed, and we can better experience the reality of how great the healthier options are. Maybe we can live without sugar/FB. Maybe life will be better that way.

dingaling 6y ago
You should consider rewriting that post with FB substituted by 'social media'.
docdeek 6y ago
Facebook's statement says that news is only 4% of what is shared on their platform. I'm not sure 4% is a major hit to their platform. On the other hand, they delivered 5.1 billion views to Australian media sites last year. That would seem to me to be a big hit to media sites.
- 2pEXgD0fZ5cF 6y ago
  > Facebook's statement says that news is only 4% of what is shared on their platform. Would be interesting to know how much of the remaining content roots in those 4%. How many of the remaining posts are in reaction to news, or reactions to reactions to news. Also do the 4% include screenshots of news articles and headlines, a very common practice on Facebook.
  - docdeek 6y ago
    Indeed. It would also be interesting to understand how much engagement is around that 4% versus 4% worth of family photos, for example. I'm not a FB user but I understand there is an audience for fighting about news stories on FB a'd that's got to keep at least some people coming back to the platform for more.
- srcreigh 6y ago
  The 4% number is a cover. This announcement represents a new fundamental limitation to FB's capabilities. Normal people can no longer share anything on FB. Previously FB sharing was limited with regards to specific taboo movements and it was called censorship. Now it's all news, even good news and great content. It's not censorship this time because FB is no longer "the place" where you share and connect. FB is no longer a universal platform. Now it's just a website. This is a good thing.
djoldman 6y ago
>FB has abused our brain chemistry with addictive content. Their platform makes discussions more impulsive, passionate and careless not unlike any other addictive substance. People crave "the goods" ie browsing their bite sized feeds, and neglect the responsibility of actually learning about the news. Not unlike how if you're addicted to sugar/unhealthy foods you don't want your veggies. Is Facebook the bad guy here? Where is examination of the person doing the scrolling? (The following applies to adults): Ostensibly, the person should be allowed to spend their time as they like if they're engaging in legal activity. If people thought that engaging in social media was bad for them, they would stop. Are we really saying that people cannot stop using social media? Are we saying that people don't think it's bad for them? If people can't stop doing an activity that is definitely hurting them, don't they need professional help? Do all these social media users need professional help? What amount of time on social media is sufficient for it to have a negative effect? Is it anything besides zero? To be meta: if hackernews is social media and social media is bad, are we all hurting ourselves?
- aliceryhl 6y ago
  Do you also think that it should be optional to wear a seatbelt?
  - djoldman 6y ago
    That's a good question. In most states, as far as I know, it's illegal not to wear a seatbelt. So from the point of view of the law, it's not optional. Pragmatically, it's somewhat optional because it's unlikely that violations of the law are detected and prosecuted. From a "should this actually be the law" point of view: I don't know. I think that in US society, our championing the rights of the individual has led to a failure to protect the individual from themselves.
- sjy 6y ago
  > Are we really saying that people cannot stop using social media? Are we saying that people don't think it's bad for them? Yes, that’s part of the definition of ‘addictive.’ Internet and social media addiction is well documented, even though not all users are addicted. Like gambling.

dingaling 6y ago

You should consider rewriting that post with FB substituted by 'social media'.

docdeek 6y ago

Facebook's statement says that news is only 4% of what is shared on their platform. I'm not sure 4% is a major hit to their platform. On the other hand, they delivered 5.1 billion views to Australian media sites last year. That would seem to me to be a big hit to media sites.

2pEXgD0fZ5cF 6y ago
> Facebook's statement says that news is only 4% of what is shared on their platform. Would be interesting to know how much of the remaining content roots in those 4%. How many of the remaining posts are in reaction to news, or reactions to reactions to news. Also do the 4% include screenshots of news articles and headlines, a very common practice on Facebook.
- docdeek 6y ago
  Indeed. It would also be interesting to understand how much engagement is around that 4% versus 4% worth of family photos, for example. I'm not a FB user but I understand there is an audience for fighting about news stories on FB a'd that's got to keep at least some people coming back to the platform for more.
srcreigh 6y ago
The 4% number is a cover. This announcement represents a new fundamental limitation to FB's capabilities. Normal people can no longer share anything on FB. Previously FB sharing was limited with regards to specific taboo movements and it was called censorship. Now it's all news, even good news and great content. It's not censorship this time because FB is no longer "the place" where you share and connect. FB is no longer a universal platform. Now it's just a website. This is a good thing.

djoldman 6y ago

>FB has abused our brain chemistry with addictive content. Their platform makes discussions more impulsive, passionate and careless not unlike any other addictive substance. People crave "the goods" ie browsing their bite sized feeds, and neglect the responsibility of actually learning about the news. Not unlike how if you're addicted to sugar/unhealthy foods you don't want your veggies. Is Facebook the bad guy here? Where is examination of the person doing the scrolling? (The following applies to adults): Ostensibly, the person should be allowed to spend their time as they like if they're engaging in legal activity. If people thought that engaging in social media was bad for them, they would stop. Are we really saying that people cannot stop using social media? Are we saying that people don't think it's bad for them? If people can't stop doing an activity that is definitely hurting them, don't they need professional help? Do all these social media users need professional help? What amount of time on social media is sufficient for it to have a negative effect? Is it anything besides zero? To be meta: if hackernews is social media and social media is bad, are we all hurting ourselves?

aliceryhl 6y ago
Do you also think that it should be optional to wear a seatbelt?
- djoldman 6y ago
  That's a good question. In most states, as far as I know, it's illegal not to wear a seatbelt. So from the point of view of the law, it's not optional. Pragmatically, it's somewhat optional because it's unlikely that violations of the law are detected and prosecuted. From a "should this actually be the law" point of view: I don't know. I think that in US society, our championing the rights of the individual has led to a failure to protect the individual from themselves.
sjy 6y ago
> Are we really saying that people cannot stop using social media? Are we saying that people don't think it's bad for them? Yes, that’s part of the definition of ‘addictive.’ Internet and social media addiction is well documented, even though not all users are addicted. Like gambling.