4 ms·

The algorithms that underpin Facebook’s business weren’t created to filter out what was false or inflammatory; they were designed to make people share and engag

The algorithms that underpin Facebook’s business weren’t created to filter out what was false or inflammatory; they were designed to make people share and engage with as much content as possible by showing them things they were most likely to be outraged or titillated by. I find it interesting that this article does not even mention some of the other platforms that have also grown off this strategy, and have contributed to the societal problems named in the article. I joke with my wife that you can innocently watch a YouTube press conference featuring our moderate Republican governor discussing COVID policy one day, and before you know it you're being recommended videos by rabid anti-vaxxers and QAnon deep state conspiracy theorists. It's not just a Facebook problem or an "AI" problem, it's a platform problem which requires wider solutions than the broken internal approaches described in this article.

TheJoYo 6y ago
Platforms that stick to chronological order are growing without the influence of this strategy. Mastodon has been doing very well by simply offering the Email of social media.
- Nextgrid 6y ago
  I agree that chronological order and more generally not overriding user's preferences to maximize engagement would solve this problem. I disagree that Mastodon (or other federated alternatives) are a good example of this because these projects don't have a business model to support, so obviously they don't have to care about maximizing engagement. I'm not saying maximizing engagement is a good idea, or that engagement-based business models are a good idea, I'm just saying that comparing a platform with an incentive to make money to one that does not doesn't answer anything.
  - TheJoYo 6y ago
    everything feeds the basilisk.
- throwawayboise 6y ago
  Outside of HN I have never heard or seen anyone talk or write about Mastodon. For the general pubic, it doesn't exist.
ggggtez 6y ago
I think it's worth pointing out that Facebook isn't the only platform, though I don't think every article needs to cover all social media equally. This article does a deeper dive on one particular company's issues (and the company that's widely acknowledged to have known about the issue the longest, and done the least to fix it). There are other articles that tackle this topic for YouTube [1]. But as far as I know, we're still waiting on any expose that shows that YouTube had done extensive research into the issue and opted to do nothing to continue growth. That dubious honor seems to be reserved for Facebook at least for now. [1] https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2021/02/12/youtube-channel-recommendation-white-supremacist-extremist-videos/6712787002/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2021/02/12/youtube-chann... > [In 2017,] YouTube limited recommendations on those videos and disabled features such as commenting and sharing. But it didn’t remove them. The company said the crackdown reduced views of supremacist videos by 80%.

TheJoYo 6y ago

Platforms that stick to chronological order are growing without the influence of this strategy. Mastodon has been doing very well by simply offering the Email of social media.

Nextgrid 6y ago
I agree that chronological order and more generally not overriding user's preferences to maximize engagement would solve this problem. I disagree that Mastodon (or other federated alternatives) are a good example of this because these projects don't have a business model to support, so obviously they don't have to care about maximizing engagement. I'm not saying maximizing engagement is a good idea, or that engagement-based business models are a good idea, I'm just saying that comparing a platform with an incentive to make money to one that does not doesn't answer anything.
- TheJoYo 6y ago
  everything feeds the basilisk.
throwawayboise 6y ago
Outside of HN I have never heard or seen anyone talk or write about Mastodon. For the general pubic, it doesn't exist.

ggggtez 6y ago

I think it's worth pointing out that Facebook isn't the only platform, though I don't think every article needs to cover all social media equally. This article does a deeper dive on one particular company's issues (and the company that's widely acknowledged to have known about the issue the longest, and done the least to fix it). There are other articles that tackle this topic for YouTube [1]. But as far as I know, we're still waiting on any expose that shows that YouTube had done extensive research into the issue and opted to do nothing to continue growth. That dubious honor seems to be reserved for Facebook at least for now. [1] https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2021/02/12/youtube-channel-recommendation-white-supremacist-extremist-videos/6712787002/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2021/02/12/youtube-chann... > [In 2017,] YouTube limited recommendations on those videos and disabled features such as commenting and sharing. But it didn’t remove them. The company said the crackdown reduced views of supremacist videos by 80%.