3 ms·

So the argument is that, because Thomas Caldwell posted the word “Inside” on his Facebook during the riots, Facebook is somehow responsible for the riots them

So the argument is that, because Thomas Caldwell posted the word “Inside” on his Facebook during the riots, Facebook is somehow responsible for the riots themselves? It’s trendy to hate FB, but this is utterly ridiculous. Guess what else was used to organize these riots? Telephones. Are telephones evil? No. Do evil people use communication tools to further their goals? Yes. Does that mean those tools are bad or should be shut down or monitored? No.

mullingitover 5y ago
There isn't an automated telephone network that calls you to get you involved in controversial conversations purely because the system has calculated that these conversations will drive you to use the telephone more, all in order to expose you to more telephone-based advertising.
- Jonanin 5y ago
  Ah yes, controversial conversations, we surely should not be letting people have those. Online conversations should be of the government approved variety only. And sending notifications about non government approved conversations? Atrocious, and dangerous! Maybe you’re right. We should ban online conversation tools and use telephones exclusively, because their inherent lack of scalability and features means people can’t organize as effectively. That will definitely fix our problems.
  - mullingitover 5y ago
    > Ah yes, controversial conversations, we surely should not be letting people have those. I never said that those shouldn't exist, what I am saying is that Facebook preferentially displays these flamebait posts because they drive engagement.
    - Jonanin 5y ago
      Do you have any evidence for this, or are you guessing? Going back to your original analogy about a telephone that calls you, Facebook doesn't preferentially show notifications. They show notifications whenever something happens according to how you have your notifications set. Anyways, you have the causality completely incorrect here. It is the person that has the preference, and Facebook caters to that preference, regardless of what it is. If your point is just that people cared most about their conversations related to the capital riot on Jan 6, of course you are correct. It was the most important event of that day, month, and maybe even year. But maybe, just maybe, if you keep blaming FB hard enough, you'll fix society's problems.
      - mullingitover 5y ago
        > Do you have any evidence for this, or are you guessing? How do I know that facebook uses divisiveness to maximize engagement? Because that's what they said: > “Our algorithms exploit the human brain’s attraction to divisiveness,” read a slide from a 2018 presentation. “If left unchecked,” it warned, Facebook would feed users “more and more divisive content in an effort to gain user attention & increase time on the platform.” [1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-knows-it-encourages-division-top-executives-nixed-solutions-11590507499?mod=hp_lead_pos5 https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-knows-it-encourages-di...

mullingitover 5y ago

There isn't an automated telephone network that calls you to get you involved in controversial conversations purely because the system has calculated that these conversations will drive you to use the telephone more, all in order to expose you to more telephone-based advertising.

Jonanin 5y ago
Ah yes, controversial conversations, we surely should not be letting people have those. Online conversations should be of the government approved variety only. And sending notifications about non government approved conversations? Atrocious, and dangerous! Maybe you’re right. We should ban online conversation tools and use telephones exclusively, because their inherent lack of scalability and features means people can’t organize as effectively. That will definitely fix our problems.
- mullingitover 5y ago
  > Ah yes, controversial conversations, we surely should not be letting people have those. I never said that those shouldn't exist, what I am saying is that Facebook preferentially displays these flamebait posts because they drive engagement.
  - Jonanin 5y ago
    Do you have any evidence for this, or are you guessing? Going back to your original analogy about a telephone that calls you, Facebook doesn't preferentially show notifications. They show notifications whenever something happens according to how you have your notifications set. Anyways, you have the causality completely incorrect here. It is the person that has the preference, and Facebook caters to that preference, regardless of what it is. If your point is just that people cared most about their conversations related to the capital riot on Jan 6, of course you are correct. It was the most important event of that day, month, and maybe even year. But maybe, just maybe, if you keep blaming FB hard enough, you'll fix society's problems.
    - mullingitover 5y ago
      > Do you have any evidence for this, or are you guessing? How do I know that facebook uses divisiveness to maximize engagement? Because that's what they said: > “Our algorithms exploit the human brain’s attraction to divisiveness,” read a slide from a 2018 presentation. “If left unchecked,” it warned, Facebook would feed users “more and more divisive content in an effort to gain user attention & increase time on the platform.” [1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-knows-it-encourages-division-top-executives-nixed-solutions-11590507499?mod=hp_lead_pos5 https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-knows-it-encourages-di...