5 ms·

Aren't their algorithms all designed to optimize for engagement? Isn't engagement just the measure of how much time you spend on and interacting with their syst

Aren't their algorithms all designed to optimize for engagement? Isn't engagement just the measure of how much time you spend on and interacting with their system? Doesn't that mean that they're not deciding what to keep feeding us, but rather that we are? It seems like what they've done is basically automate, "Give the people what they want.", as it were. We produce the clickbait, we click on the clickbait, then we get fed more and more of what we click on. I tend to think that this probably boils down to rent-seeking via exploiting self-destructive human behavior/biology, so I'm not too fond of it for those reasons. But, that doesn't seem very much like Facebook censoring things as it does them feeding everyone exactly what people indicate to them with their clicks and comments they'd like to be fed. I suppose there's an interesting discussion about what lengths companies like Facebook should go to save people from themselves, but to me they're basically another form of vice monetization like cigarettes, alcohol, etc.

Animats 5y ago
It seems like what they've done is basically automate, "Give the people what they want.", as it were. Yes. Facebook profits from giving people what they want, but did not create the demand. What's scary is the quantity of demand for nuttiness. The other big feature of social media is that it brings diffuse minorities together. Before social media, outliers were unlikely to meet those with similar inclinations. Social media powered cohesion of groups from gays to Proud Boys to flat-earthers. Fox News probably influences more people, anyway. Should they be "brought under control?" I'm more worried about the trend towards censorship everywhere.
- disgruntledphd2 5y ago
  > The other big feature of social media is that it brings diffuse minorities together. Before social media, outliers were unlikely to meet those with similar inclinations. Social media powered cohesion of groups from gays to Proud Boys to flat-earthers. And this is mostly a great thing. Like the internet started this, but Facebook (and Twitter I suppose) made it mainstream. We're essentially in another time period like the one after the invention of the printing press, where the mechanisms for controlling the spread of information break down, and something new is born. Unfortunately, it's much easier for journalists/policymakers et al to blame "Big Tech" rather than realise that to some extent, we are all to blame.
sneak 5y ago
> Aren't their algorithms all designed to optimize for engagement? Isn't engagement just the measure of how much time you spend on and interacting with their system? Doesn't that mean that they're not deciding what to keep feeding us, but rather that we are? This would be true if everyone were the same. However, the stuff that engages with the median isn't the stuff that engages with everyone. Their prioritization of popular things means they censor anything not popular by pushing it down the feed, in some cases excluding it entirely. Not everyone "wouldn't believe what happens next!" It's pushing people's attention toward median melodrama, and hiding things that involve nuance or anything not engaging, like, for example, announcements of deaths of friends. This would be possibly excusable under your model, but they also censor what links you can share privately with friends in DMs on instagram, whatsapp, and fb messenger.
aeortiz 5y ago
This reminds me of the Eloi and the Morlocks of "The Time Machine". The hapless Eloi are the general public, whose data are treated as tasty flesh to snack on by data scrapers like FB and Google.
goatinaboat 5y ago
Doesn't that mean that they're not deciding what to keep feeding us, but rather that we are? Not exactly. Think about fast food. You are genetically programmed to enjoy fatty, sugary, salty foods because these were hard to come by back in the day. Now they are easy and companies push them on us, by exploiting this evolutionary development in a harmful way. Similarly all your social instincts like FOMO are baked in, and Facebook targets them ruthlessly.
- disgruntledphd2 5y ago
  > Similarly all your social instincts like FOMO are baked in, and [TV/radio/books] targets them ruthlessly. Are my rephrasings of your statement any less true, or is FB somehow different?
  - goatinaboat 5y ago
    Are my rephrasings of your statement any less true, or is FB somehow different? Yes. A TV show has to appeal to a million or 10 million people and the feedback cycle is a season long. It has to stay pretty close to the “average”. There's a limit on how strongly it can pull any lever, and pulling that lever might decrease influence with half the audience as much as it increases it with the other. Whereas Facebook can tweak the experience for a single individual with a hundred feedback loops in a day and when it finds the right level pull it as hard as it can. That’s new.
    - disgruntledphd2 5y ago
      But it doesn't. Have you ever used facebook? Essentially it shows you whatever the highest engagement content is, which is normally a birth, engagement or some other life event. Speaking as someone who develops ML models, there's no way that they are iterating multiple times per day, and it is 100% not tuned to specific users as they have so many. And how are they supposed to measure the impact of the lever? These are not trivial questions, but they are often treated as such in online discourse, which is pretty disappointing.

Animats 5y ago

It seems like what they've done is basically automate, "Give the people what they want.", as it were. Yes. Facebook profits from giving people what they want, but did not create the demand. What's scary is the quantity of demand for nuttiness. The other big feature of social media is that it brings diffuse minorities together. Before social media, outliers were unlikely to meet those with similar inclinations. Social media powered cohesion of groups from gays to Proud Boys to flat-earthers. Fox News probably influences more people, anyway. Should they be "brought under control?" I'm more worried about the trend towards censorship everywhere.

disgruntledphd2 5y ago
> The other big feature of social media is that it brings diffuse minorities together. Before social media, outliers were unlikely to meet those with similar inclinations. Social media powered cohesion of groups from gays to Proud Boys to flat-earthers. And this is mostly a great thing. Like the internet started this, but Facebook (and Twitter I suppose) made it mainstream. We're essentially in another time period like the one after the invention of the printing press, where the mechanisms for controlling the spread of information break down, and something new is born. Unfortunately, it's much easier for journalists/policymakers et al to blame "Big Tech" rather than realise that to some extent, we are all to blame.

sneak 5y ago

> Aren't their algorithms all designed to optimize for engagement? Isn't engagement just the measure of how much time you spend on and interacting with their system? Doesn't that mean that they're not deciding what to keep feeding us, but rather that we are? This would be true if everyone were the same. However, the stuff that engages with the median isn't the stuff that engages with everyone. Their prioritization of popular things means they censor anything not popular by pushing it down the feed, in some cases excluding it entirely. Not everyone "wouldn't believe what happens next!" It's pushing people's attention toward median melodrama, and hiding things that involve nuance or anything not engaging, like, for example, announcements of deaths of friends. This would be possibly excusable under your model, but they also censor what links you can share privately with friends in DMs on instagram, whatsapp, and fb messenger.

aeortiz 5y ago

This reminds me of the Eloi and the Morlocks of "The Time Machine". The hapless Eloi are the general public, whose data are treated as tasty flesh to snack on by data scrapers like FB and Google.

goatinaboat 5y ago

Doesn't that mean that they're not deciding what to keep feeding us, but rather that we are? Not exactly. Think about fast food. You are genetically programmed to enjoy fatty, sugary, salty foods because these were hard to come by back in the day. Now they are easy and companies push them on us, by exploiting this evolutionary development in a harmful way. Similarly all your social instincts like FOMO are baked in, and Facebook targets them ruthlessly.

disgruntledphd2 5y ago
> Similarly all your social instincts like FOMO are baked in, and [TV/radio/books] targets them ruthlessly. Are my rephrasings of your statement any less true, or is FB somehow different?
- goatinaboat 5y ago
  Are my rephrasings of your statement any less true, or is FB somehow different? Yes. A TV show has to appeal to a million or 10 million people and the feedback cycle is a season long. It has to stay pretty close to the “average”. There's a limit on how strongly it can pull any lever, and pulling that lever might decrease influence with half the audience as much as it increases it with the other. Whereas Facebook can tweak the experience for a single individual with a hundred feedback loops in a day and when it finds the right level pull it as hard as it can. That’s new.
  - disgruntledphd2 5y ago
    But it doesn't. Have you ever used facebook? Essentially it shows you whatever the highest engagement content is, which is normally a birth, engagement or some other life event. Speaking as someone who develops ML models, there's no way that they are iterating multiple times per day, and it is 100% not tuned to specific users as they have so many. And how are they supposed to measure the impact of the lever? These are not trivial questions, but they are often treated as such in online discourse, which is pretty disappointing.