5 ms·

What the Wall Street Journal Got Wrong (by FB VP of Global Affairs)

20 points by ali92hm 5y ago

chillacy 5y ago
> It’s a claim which could only be made by cherry-picking selective quotes from individual pieces of leaked material in a way that presents complex and nuanced issues as if there is only ever one right answer. Distributing narratives (worldview, values, etc) is basically the function of the news today. Hard facts are commoditized, they're available for free as AP wires. Picking, omitting, and organizing these facts to construct narrative–that's where each news organization can add its own flair.
tw04 5y ago
Pardon my skepticism of a guy in charge of global affairs of a company that openly "curates" news feeds to "maximize engagement" with 0 regard for facts and logic trying to criticize a news agency for "selective reporting". Pot, kettle?
- esrauch 5y ago
  Do you have a citation of how they "openly" not give any weight to facts?
  - bryan0 5y ago
    Their algorithms are based on predicted engagement not truthfulness. One is trivial to measure and the other very difficult. https://www.socialmediatoday.com/news/facebook-provides-new-explainer-on-how-its-news-feed-algorithm-works/603189/ https://www.socialmediatoday.com/news/facebook-provides-new-...
    - esrauch 5y ago
      Being difficult to measure doesn't mean they don't try though. It would just mean they are less likely to fully succeed. I would be pretty surprised if they don't have a "disinformation penalty" as a factor in the scoring function.
zestyping 5y ago
This is hardly a rebuttal. I wish it had actually provided some content to address specific claims in the WSJ articles, rather than simply asserting that their central thesis is "just plain false" and leaving it at that.
- simpleguitar 5y ago
  Yes, He’s just stonewalling. And if this is the official response from Facebook…
muglug 5y ago
FYI the author of this post is paid just shy of 4 million dollars a year by Facebook to say this sort of stuff.
- perihelions 5y ago
  He's a former head of state, of course he's expensive.
  - jen20 5y ago
    He most certainly is not. The Queen is the head of state of the United Kingdom, and Clegg was only deputy prime minister in any case.
    - perihelions 5y ago
      Apologies, and thanks for the correction! I forgot about parliamentary systems distinguishing those two (heads of government / of state).
    - zahllos 5y ago
      Further clarification: deputy prime minister is not a position that exists as a matter of constitution in the UK. The position was created for Clegg as the junior partner in a coalition government. I think it has existed before and no doubt will again, but you don't need to have a deputy PM. He also reneged so hard on a campaign promises as part of the 2010 coalition his Liberal Democrat party was wiped out in the 2015 election and is now a non-entity in British politics. They went from 57 seats to 8. I'm British. I used to be able to name the leader of the lib dems in the same way I knew the leaders of labour and the conservatives. I now no longer know who they are and I don't think anyone else cares either. So yeah the guy that brought that about is earning 4MM/yr.
      - blibble 5y ago
        > Further clarification: deputy prime minister is not a position that exists as a matter of constitution in the UK. the same is true of prime minister!
pydry 5y ago
It's kind of weird watching an ex deputy prime minister (famous mainly for betraying his supporters and reneging on his flagship campaign promise so he could stay deputy PM) get so self-righteously indignant about the idea that he and his employer might have motives that arent completely pure. The fact he claimed that the motives of the researchers were impugned as if they made the decision to ignore their own research is even more bizarre. Nick Clegg is a clown.
blazespin 5y ago
Reasonable, but misses the key point that he simply can't address. Is social media a good idea for teenagers? As parents, should we be finding ways to limit their use? At least until it becomes more clear that it makes a positive impact. This, to me, is what I got from the WSJ article. Not how / good bad FB is. I mean - Capitalist company going to capitalize. Duh.
thesausageking 5y ago
The "research into the impact social media has on people is still relatively nascent and evolving" bit reminded me of Exxon knowing in 1979 that fossil fuels caused climate change and for the next 40 years pushing the narrative that the science wasn't settled.

20 points by ali92hm 5y ago

> It’s a claim which could only be made by cherry-picking selective quotes from individual pieces of leaked material in a way that presents complex and nuanced issues as if there is only ever one right answer. Distributing narratives (worldview, values, etc) is basically the function of the news today. Hard facts are commoditized, they're available for free as AP wires. Picking, omitting, and organizing these facts to construct narrative–that's where each news organization can add its own flair.

tw04 5y ago

Pardon my skepticism of a guy in charge of global affairs of a company that openly "curates" news feeds to "maximize engagement" with 0 regard for facts and logic trying to criticize a news agency for "selective reporting". Pot, kettle?

esrauch 5y ago
Do you have a citation of how they "openly" not give any weight to facts?
- bryan0 5y ago
  Their algorithms are based on predicted engagement not truthfulness. One is trivial to measure and the other very difficult. https://www.socialmediatoday.com/news/facebook-provides-new-explainer-on-how-its-news-feed-algorithm-works/603189/ https://www.socialmediatoday.com/news/facebook-provides-new-...
  - esrauch 5y ago
    Being difficult to measure doesn't mean they don't try though. It would just mean they are less likely to fully succeed. I would be pretty surprised if they don't have a "disinformation penalty" as a factor in the scoring function.

zestyping 5y ago

This is hardly a rebuttal. I wish it had actually provided some content to address specific claims in the WSJ articles, rather than simply asserting that their central thesis is "just plain false" and leaving it at that.

simpleguitar 5y ago
Yes, He’s just stonewalling. And if this is the official response from Facebook…

muglug 5y ago

FYI the author of this post is paid just shy of 4 million dollars a year by Facebook to say this sort of stuff.

perihelions 5y ago
He's a former head of state, of course he's expensive.
- jen20 5y ago
  He most certainly is not. The Queen is the head of state of the United Kingdom, and Clegg was only deputy prime minister in any case.
  - perihelions 5y ago
    Apologies, and thanks for the correction! I forgot about parliamentary systems distinguishing those two (heads of government / of state).
  - zahllos 5y ago
    Further clarification: deputy prime minister is not a position that exists as a matter of constitution in the UK. The position was created for Clegg as the junior partner in a coalition government. I think it has existed before and no doubt will again, but you don't need to have a deputy PM. He also reneged so hard on a campaign promises as part of the 2010 coalition his Liberal Democrat party was wiped out in the 2015 election and is now a non-entity in British politics. They went from 57 seats to 8. I'm British. I used to be able to name the leader of the lib dems in the same way I knew the leaders of labour and the conservatives. I now no longer know who they are and I don't think anyone else cares either. So yeah the guy that brought that about is earning 4MM/yr.
    - blibble 5y ago
      > Further clarification: deputy prime minister is not a position that exists as a matter of constitution in the UK. the same is true of prime minister!

pydry 5y ago

It's kind of weird watching an ex deputy prime minister (famous mainly for betraying his supporters and reneging on his flagship campaign promise so he could stay deputy PM) get so self-righteously indignant about the idea that he and his employer might have motives that arent completely pure. The fact he claimed that the motives of the researchers were impugned as if they made the decision to ignore their own research is even more bizarre. Nick Clegg is a clown.

blazespin 5y ago

Reasonable, but misses the key point that he simply can't address. Is social media a good idea for teenagers? As parents, should we be finding ways to limit their use? At least until it becomes more clear that it makes a positive impact. This, to me, is what I got from the WSJ article. Not how / good bad FB is. I mean - Capitalist company going to capitalize. Duh.

thesausageking 5y ago

The "research into the impact social media has on people is still relatively nascent and evolving" bit reminded me of Exxon knowing in 1979 that fossil fuels caused climate change and for the next 40 years pushing the narrative that the science wasn't settled.