4 ms·
Facebook has a problem with misinformation - it's just that their problem isn't the same as what people assume their problem is. "Misinformation" tends to be s
by Syonyk 5y ago
Facebook has a problem with misinformation - it's just that their problem isn't the same as what people assume their problem is.
"Misinformation" tends to be spectacularly engaging content - which is quite profitable.
People upset about misinformation on Facebook tend to use Facebook less, which is less profitable.
The ideal solution for Facebook is that they can show misinformation to people they know will outrage-scroll as a result, while not showing misinformation to people who might be upset about Facebook not really having done much about it.
"Transparency" extensions and such violate this, badly. You might find out what sort of ads Facebook shows your aunt out one side of their site while talking about how they're combatting misinformation on the other.
They've solved the problem.
- prox 5y agoIs there a name for this skewing?
- Syonyk 5y agoZucking it up? I just put it in the category of "What's Good for Facebook is Good for Facebook."
- Enginerrrd 5y agoWhile I wouldn't be surprised at this at all given their track record and incentives, is there any evidence that this is what they're doing?
- darig 5y agohttps://www.facebook.com/business/ads/ad-targeting https://www.facebook.com/business/ads/ad-targeting
- Syonyk 5y agoAt some point, many years ago, it was reasonable to assume Facebook had something resembling honest intentions. That has been proven wrong so many times, across such a wide range of topics, that at this point it's reasonable to assume actions by Facebook correspond to "What makes us more money," and any press release about the actions is "How can we spin this in such a way that the most people possible will swallow it and keep using Facebook?"
- Enginerrrd 5y agoI lean toward your side here, but I still like to seek out confirmation for things I agree with.
- tshaddox 5y agoI'm pretty sure that people upset about misinformation on Facebook are upset about misinformation being shown to other people, including people who are pleased (which is to say engaged) by misinformation.
- Nevermark 5y agoRight. And even people who like their own brand of misinformation are not happy about other people enjoying other conflicting brands of misinformation. And this is true whether we are talking about objective misinformation or subjective "misinformation". And so Facebook is fantastically incentivized to give each person not just what they want, but to leak as little about other people's objectionable/"objectionable" (in your eyes) experiences to you as possible. For Facebook "cleaning up" means, optimal silo-ing.
- tshaddox 5y agoYeah, it's easy to imagine that as a pretty natural direction for Facebook. It's already barely "social" in the traditional sense of sharing stuff with your friends (at least for a lot of people, based on my impression). If it's way more engaging to separate each person from whatever vestige of a "real friend" group they still have, and funnel them down whatever rabbit hole they engage with the most (regardless of whether it's a misinformation rabbit hole, although I suspect many would be), then I would certainly expect Facebook to do so.
- cwkoss 5y agoI wonder if Facebook has a big list of misinformation published by major news organizations that they aren't sure what to do with. I often see the same people who talk about how dangerous sites like PatriotFreedomEagleNews are in terms of misinformation respond belligerently when shown evidence of similar misinformation coming from CNN or MSNBC. The list of reliably credible news sources is much shorter than most people believe.
- jjoonathan 5y agoThey're reacting to the false equivalency you are drawing, not the evidence that CNN or MSNBC spread misinformation, but I doubt I'll be able to change your mind on the matter.
- cwkoss 5y agoWhat makes the equivalency false?