5 ms·

The discussion about the algorithmic feed seems to be out of context for this thread (i.e., Facebook is now claiming official CDC.gov links are “False Informati

The discussion about the algorithmic feed seems to be out of context for this thread (i.e., Facebook is now claiming official CDC.gov links are “False Information”) I don't believe the problem is facebook recommending anything -- the problem is facebook trying to ban certain content entirely (at least in the context of this thread -- algorithmic feeds are a separate problem.)

Terretta 5y ago
> I'm not making the connection between an algorithmic feed and anything I wrote. > The title of this thread is 'Facebook is now claiming official CDC.gov links are “False Information”'. > I don't believe the problem is facebook recommending anything -- the problem is facebook trying to ban certain content entirely You say you don't believe (a), and you state that the problem is (b). I'm seeing "belief" without substantiation in both of those sentences. I'm also actively not taking username "gunapologist" as related to the merits of beliefs or statements in any way. Finally, it's not clear to me that Facebook is a censor. I hold they have a right to promote or not promote whatever they want. Give someone a megaphone, suddenly anyone not handed a megaphone cries censor. No, just not amplified. Commercially, choosing not to promote a thing is much like a TV channel choosing not to run an ad or sponsor an event, something they choose to not do all the time. I'd rather FB promote nothing, go back to a timeline of posts from my connections, and seems like "a problem" (one of many) is solved.
- gunapologist99 5y ago
  > I'm also actively not taking username "gunapologist" as related in any way. rotfl touché > I'm seeing "belief" without substantiation in both of those sentences. that's why I said "believe". my opinions about what facebook should and shouldn't be doing are simply that.. opinions. if I were to say any of this on facebook, it's possible that I could immediately be banned, and where's the fun in that. (that's a serious question.. isn't facebook supposed to be a fun place to communicate? if we have to worry about the ban hammer, how is it either?) Moderation should be like HN: light, but still there. If it gets too heavy, civil discourse dies. If it disappears, then the place might turn into lord of the flies. (although, I hope a place like that always exists, too.)
  - Terretta 5y ago
    I agree with everything here, FWIW. :-)
- coryrc 5y ago
  I have a friend who posts once in a blue moon. When he posts, it's usually the first thing on my feed, even many days later. My wife's cousin posts batshit stuff multiple times a day. I fail to see how a strict timeline won't result in my stream being more looney?
  - majewsky 5y ago
    Wouldn't that just result in social pressure to post at acceptable levels, or people unfriending you for posting too much shit? ...Upon rereading, I realize that I'm probably implying my own preferences as universal.
  - wffurr 5y ago
    Ask the prolific poster to turn it down or unfollow them. Wham, solved.
  - Terretta 5y ago
    Before the algo feed they’d already implemented filtering so you could stop seeing social addict connections’ posts. You could also do groups with different notifications and post filtering. If you really wanted to catch up on your wife’s cousin’s train-wreck of thought, you could still click into her.
    - coryrc 5y ago
      You claimed the algorithm is responsible for increasing virality of dumb thoughts. Yet my counterexample is that it reduces it. I believe removing the algorithmic feed alone is not going to solve the problem of misinformation.
wffurr 5y ago
No promoting content, no need to flag misinformation.
- gunapologist99 5y ago
  As others have pointed out, the major social platforms all ban content regardless of reach, and even in private messages.
- TheParkShark 5y ago
  I fully agree with this. It flys in the face of what I have even seen recommend on HN for TikTok. I’ve seen posts saying the algorithm on TikTok is the best and it gives great suggestions. I guess my question to you is, do you think TikTok has a superior algorithm to Facebook/YouTube or is promoting content on any level going to lead to misinformation?
  - lmm 5y ago
    Just as a foreign newspaper can be the best way to find out the actually important things going on in your country/culture, maybe a foreign algorithm (or rather algorithm-moderation complex - I suspect facebook recommendations have a lot more manual tuning than anyone would admit) will be better at recommending in a neutral way. (TikTok of course has blatant biases on particular issues - but they're issues that are less relevant to most westerners than the things which Facebook/YouTube recommendation is biased about).
- tonyaiken 5y ago
  The problem is sometimes misinformation attracts far more people and therefore just like promoted

Terretta 5y ago

> I'm not making the connection between an algorithmic feed and anything I wrote. > The title of this thread is 'Facebook is now claiming official CDC.gov links are “False Information”'. > I don't believe the problem is facebook recommending anything -- the problem is facebook trying to ban certain content entirely You say you don't believe (a), and you state that the problem is (b). I'm seeing "belief" without substantiation in both of those sentences. I'm also actively not taking username "gunapologist" as related to the merits of beliefs or statements in any way. Finally, it's not clear to me that Facebook is a censor. I hold they have a right to promote or not promote whatever they want. Give someone a megaphone, suddenly anyone not handed a megaphone cries censor. No, just not amplified. Commercially, choosing not to promote a thing is much like a TV channel choosing not to run an ad or sponsor an event, something they choose to not do all the time. I'd rather FB promote nothing, go back to a timeline of posts from my connections, and seems like "a problem" (one of many) is solved.

gunapologist99 5y ago
> I'm also actively not taking username "gunapologist" as related in any way. rotfl touché > I'm seeing "belief" without substantiation in both of those sentences. that's why I said "believe". my opinions about what facebook should and shouldn't be doing are simply that.. opinions. if I were to say any of this on facebook, it's possible that I could immediately be banned, and where's the fun in that. (that's a serious question.. isn't facebook supposed to be a fun place to communicate? if we have to worry about the ban hammer, how is it either?) Moderation should be like HN: light, but still there. If it gets too heavy, civil discourse dies. If it disappears, then the place might turn into lord of the flies. (although, I hope a place like that always exists, too.)
- Terretta 5y ago
  I agree with everything here, FWIW. :-)
coryrc 5y ago
I have a friend who posts once in a blue moon. When he posts, it's usually the first thing on my feed, even many days later. My wife's cousin posts batshit stuff multiple times a day. I fail to see how a strict timeline won't result in my stream being more looney?
- majewsky 5y ago
  Wouldn't that just result in social pressure to post at acceptable levels, or people unfriending you for posting too much shit? ...Upon rereading, I realize that I'm probably implying my own preferences as universal.
- wffurr 5y ago
  Ask the prolific poster to turn it down or unfollow them. Wham, solved.
- Terretta 5y ago
  Before the algo feed they’d already implemented filtering so you could stop seeing social addict connections’ posts. You could also do groups with different notifications and post filtering. If you really wanted to catch up on your wife’s cousin’s train-wreck of thought, you could still click into her.
  - coryrc 5y ago
    You claimed the algorithm is responsible for increasing virality of dumb thoughts. Yet my counterexample is that it reduces it. I believe removing the algorithmic feed alone is not going to solve the problem of misinformation.

wffurr 5y ago

No promoting content, no need to flag misinformation.

gunapologist99 5y ago
As others have pointed out, the major social platforms all ban content regardless of reach, and even in private messages.
TheParkShark 5y ago
I fully agree with this. It flys in the face of what I have even seen recommend on HN for TikTok. I’ve seen posts saying the algorithm on TikTok is the best and it gives great suggestions. I guess my question to you is, do you think TikTok has a superior algorithm to Facebook/YouTube or is promoting content on any level going to lead to misinformation?
- lmm 5y ago
  Just as a foreign newspaper can be the best way to find out the actually important things going on in your country/culture, maybe a foreign algorithm (or rather algorithm-moderation complex - I suspect facebook recommendations have a lot more manual tuning than anyone would admit) will be better at recommending in a neutral way. (TikTok of course has blatant biases on particular issues - but they're issues that are less relevant to most westerners than the things which Facebook/YouTube recommendation is biased about).
tonyaiken 5y ago
The problem is sometimes misinformation attracts far more people and therefore just like promoted