5 ms·

Someone will have to explain to me how is that any different than a tabloid, or even a legacy newspaper/news broadcast. The more shocking it is, the more eyeba

Someone will have to explain to me how is that any different than a tabloid, or even a legacy newspaper/news broadcast. The more shocking it is, the more eyeballs it attracts and the more add revenue it gets.

athenot 6y ago
Tabloids come at most daily. They don't create patterns of continuous engagement throughout the day (unless linked to by social media). News broadcast is a better analogy but still not as addictive as something that continually reaches out to you throughout the day.
- Barracoon 6y ago
  I'd add the active component of Facebook compared to tabloids/broadcasts. With the latter, I'm just a consumer. With the former, I'm actively contributing via share/like/comment. There's probably a psychological component that deepens your commitment to the viewpoint when you actively participate like that.
- coffeefirst 6y ago
  They also aren't personalized, which has more side effects than people realize. Even the most nihilist shock-jock has to pick a speed that won't alienate half his audience or drive all the advertisers away from the network. In these systems, those counterweights don't exist.
strangeloops85 6y ago
Two main differences: Scale and transparency. The scale of reach is tremendous, faster and optimized in a way newspapers/media could only dream of. It's also not publicly clear what is being widely disseminated and to whom, other than when outside parties analyze what's happening within Facebook on a given day (and this has limits).
- throwaway53453 6y ago
  Tabloids has the same issue with transparency and scale. The media industry took a liking to pushing governments to war, whereas so far Facebook has proven to just hunger for money.
carabiner 6y ago
FB didn't invent clickbait, but they made it way more insidious. Tabloids didn't go viral like FB posts do. Just as guns and nukes don't kill people, but they do make it easier. Really, I see Facebook as the A-bomb of virality and fomenting extremism. It is devastatingly effective. That's why they've made so much money. Much more than the NYTimes or National Enquirer or Drudge Report. It's not just another media source, it's a game changer at harnessing people's attention and outraging them as quickly as possible. At scale, with 1 billion users, this has world-changing effects.
ihumanable 6y ago
Several other commenters have noted differences, but I have one that I think is significant. Tabloids, newspapers, news broadcasts are a single artifact delivered to many people. They have the same incentive to sensationalize, this is tempered though by the fact that they leave a public record that people can discuss, scrutinize, and will ultimately impact their reputation. When a paper consistently prints outlandish stories of bat-boys and lizard-ufos, everyone can see that and the paper will get a reputation as being a rag. In contrast, the feed of posts you see on your facebook (or twitter, or instagram, or other social media feed site) is tailored to you. There's no opportunity for other people to see the crazy thing that hit the front page and write blog posts critiquing it, give talks debunking the methodology, etc. The algorithm can show your eyes, and your eyes alone, a steady stream of posts that are right on the edge of what you will find acceptable and engaging. The public at large won't know what is on your feed or even the feeds of powerful actors in society like politicians, billions, and celebrities. It's like we are all accessing our own personal newspaper everyday, whose stories have been tailored to be as interesting as possible to us, but without any accountability or scrutiny besides what we bring to the table. You are welcome to see something that confirms your world view and either accept it as gospel or do the leg work to prove or disprove it. What we are finding though is that when people are presented with things that confirm their beliefs, they tend to accept them. This isn't really earth-shattering or even surprising. The ramifications of having a population constantly consuming a stream of media tailored exactly for them is something are starting to understand.
- rapind 6y ago
  There’s a simple formula to figure out how toxic something is, and that’s advertiser investment. Whenever the advertising industry get excited about a new medium or platform it should be a big red flag for the rest of us.
loveistheanswer 6y ago
>Someone will have to explain to me how is that any different than a tabloid, or even a legacy newspaper/news broadcast. Speed, scale, pervasiveness, profitability, automated algorithmic microtargeting based on individual psychological profiles. >The more shocking it is, the more eyeballs it attracts and the more add revenue it gets. It's the same concept, just taken to a never before seen technological extreme.

athenot 6y ago

Tabloids come at most daily. They don't create patterns of continuous engagement throughout the day (unless linked to by social media). News broadcast is a better analogy but still not as addictive as something that continually reaches out to you throughout the day.

Barracoon 6y ago
I'd add the active component of Facebook compared to tabloids/broadcasts. With the latter, I'm just a consumer. With the former, I'm actively contributing via share/like/comment. There's probably a psychological component that deepens your commitment to the viewpoint when you actively participate like that.
coffeefirst 6y ago
They also aren't personalized, which has more side effects than people realize. Even the most nihilist shock-jock has to pick a speed that won't alienate half his audience or drive all the advertisers away from the network. In these systems, those counterweights don't exist.

strangeloops85 6y ago

Two main differences: Scale and transparency. The scale of reach is tremendous, faster and optimized in a way newspapers/media could only dream of. It's also not publicly clear what is being widely disseminated and to whom, other than when outside parties analyze what's happening within Facebook on a given day (and this has limits).

throwaway53453 6y ago
Tabloids has the same issue with transparency and scale. The media industry took a liking to pushing governments to war, whereas so far Facebook has proven to just hunger for money.

carabiner 6y ago

FB didn't invent clickbait, but they made it way more insidious. Tabloids didn't go viral like FB posts do. Just as guns and nukes don't kill people, but they do make it easier. Really, I see Facebook as the A-bomb of virality and fomenting extremism. It is devastatingly effective. That's why they've made so much money. Much more than the NYTimes or National Enquirer or Drudge Report. It's not just another media source, it's a game changer at harnessing people's attention and outraging them as quickly as possible. At scale, with 1 billion users, this has world-changing effects.

ihumanable 6y ago

Several other commenters have noted differences, but I have one that I think is significant. Tabloids, newspapers, news broadcasts are a single artifact delivered to many people. They have the same incentive to sensationalize, this is tempered though by the fact that they leave a public record that people can discuss, scrutinize, and will ultimately impact their reputation. When a paper consistently prints outlandish stories of bat-boys and lizard-ufos, everyone can see that and the paper will get a reputation as being a rag. In contrast, the feed of posts you see on your facebook (or twitter, or instagram, or other social media feed site) is tailored to you. There's no opportunity for other people to see the crazy thing that hit the front page and write blog posts critiquing it, give talks debunking the methodology, etc. The algorithm can show your eyes, and your eyes alone, a steady stream of posts that are right on the edge of what you will find acceptable and engaging. The public at large won't know what is on your feed or even the feeds of powerful actors in society like politicians, billions, and celebrities. It's like we are all accessing our own personal newspaper everyday, whose stories have been tailored to be as interesting as possible to us, but without any accountability or scrutiny besides what we bring to the table. You are welcome to see something that confirms your world view and either accept it as gospel or do the leg work to prove or disprove it. What we are finding though is that when people are presented with things that confirm their beliefs, they tend to accept them. This isn't really earth-shattering or even surprising. The ramifications of having a population constantly consuming a stream of media tailored exactly for them is something are starting to understand.

rapind 6y ago
There’s a simple formula to figure out how toxic something is, and that’s advertiser investment. Whenever the advertising industry get excited about a new medium or platform it should be a big red flag for the rest of us.

loveistheanswer 6y ago

>Someone will have to explain to me how is that any different than a tabloid, or even a legacy newspaper/news broadcast. Speed, scale, pervasiveness, profitability, automated algorithmic microtargeting based on individual psychological profiles. >The more shocking it is, the more eyeballs it attracts and the more add revenue it gets. It's the same concept, just taken to a never before seen technological extreme.