4 ms·

A screenshot from the actual experiment: https://twitter.com/joeosborne/status/1440456340673949700 https://twitter.com/joeosborne/status/1440456340673949700 Loo

A screenshot from the actual experiment: https://twitter.com/joeosborne/status/1440456340673949700 https://twitter.com/joeosborne/status/1440456340673949700 Looks like the article is overblown.

mandevil 5y ago
If they were clear, open, and transparent about this, then the article probably doesn't get written.[1] But because they didn't announce what they're doing or the scope of it, they leave a lot of room for interpretation, and right now a whole lot of people, across the US and the world, are not interpreting Facebook's actions with any sort of benefit of the doubt. That is largely because of Facebook's well documented history. This is why intangible things that don't directly show up on a profit and loss statement- like 'consumer trust'- are so valuable. The difficulty that Facebook faces now is that when you lose trust with key stakeholders- politicians, regulators, the media, etc., it is really hard to get it back. Microsoft did, eventually, but it took ~15 years and two changes of CEO. If Zuckerberg wants to stay the CEO it might prove impossible to build trust, because people have state and it's really hard to reset that state. [1]: One of the things that the Trump administration showed is that American journalists are very good at ferreting out secrets, but if you openly declare that you are doing something, they react with much less interest. But, as the article documents, Facebook has decided to be more controlling of their data, and curate what they release much more carefully. The fiasco where they decided to kill some reporting, then held off for a month on their own reports because it would have shown that Covid vaccine FUD was the most popular article on Facebook is exactly the sort of behavior that journalists salivate over and can make careers. Just releasing the data was a minor irritant every day, but Facebook managed to turn it into a much greater embarrassment that destroyed trust with the media and academics. Even this article, which claims to be sourced to multiple fairly senior executives who disagreed enough to leak this to the NYTimes is a clear sign of the massive problems facing Facebook.
jjulius 5y ago
Forgive my ignorance, but how is it overblown? The article discusses Facebook deciding to inject positive stories about itself into the news feed so that people think, "Oh, maybe they're not so bad." That's what the linked image is designed to do. That it says "from Facebook" is beside the point, and the article even says they would say it was from Facebook: "People essentially see posts with a Facebook logo that link to stories and websites published by the company and from third-party local news sites." The fact is that they're purposely injecting fluff pieces into news feeds to try to get people to forget negative news about the platform. The only thing the linked tweet does is confirm what's reported in the article. Edit: Previous tweets in that chain from Joe also don't lend themselves to trust. First, the comment about how they didn't quote him for saying, "There is zero change to News Feed ranking," which the article never said would be modified - there's no reason to quote him on that if that's not the claim they're making. They only said that more puff pieces would appear, not that their ranking for where they are placed relative to other content would be adjusted. All they said was that you'd see more, and according to Joe's confirmation of it's existence, that's true. Second, his comment about how the meeting never happened. The article cites six current and former employees as having discussed that meeting. All he offers as proof that it didn't happen is that the article doesn't name the attendees or the sources. I'm sorry, but that entire thread holds almost no water.
- tablespoon 5y ago
  >> A screenshot from the actual experiment: https://twitter.com/joeosborne/status/1440456340673949700 https://twitter.com/joeosborne/status/1440456340673949700 Looks like the article is overblown. > Edit: Previous tweets in that chain from Joe also don't lend themselves to trust. That tweet is from @joeosborne "a @Facebook spokesperson." Not someone who I'd trust to accurately and fully characterize Facebook's actions. Given their prior history, I'd expect something misleading that attempts to portray them in the absolute best light. He also seems to think journalists should take statements from company spokesmen as the absolute truth. That's not true, and especially not true for a company as untrustworthy as Facebook.
- codelord 5y ago
  You can see from comments here on hackernews that at least a few people interpreted this as a change to their ranking algorithm. Writing ambiguously to support a narrative is also misreporting. I know anti-FB sentiment is strong on hackernews. But seriously look at that screenshot and tell me what's wrong with that? How's that different from promotions by Apple on ios/app store, Microsoft on windows, twitter, google, youtube, etc. etc. They are just promoting their company on their own platform. When did your Facebook newsfeed become this untouchable sacred place where nothing beside chronological posts from your friends is allowed? I want to hate facebook as much as anyone else but I really don't see news here.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

A screenshot from the actual experiment: https://twitter.com/joeosborne/status/1440456340673949700 https://twitter.com/joeosborne/status/1440456340673949700 Looks like the article is overblown.

mandevil 5y ago

If they were clear, open, and transparent about this, then the article probably doesn't get written.[1] But because they didn't announce what they're doing or the scope of it, they leave a lot of room for interpretation, and right now a whole lot of people, across the US and the world, are not interpreting Facebook's actions with any sort of benefit of the doubt. That is largely because of Facebook's well documented history. This is why intangible things that don't directly show up on a profit and loss statement- like 'consumer trust'- are so valuable. The difficulty that Facebook faces now is that when you lose trust with key stakeholders- politicians, regulators, the media, etc., it is really hard to get it back. Microsoft did, eventually, but it took ~15 years and two changes of CEO. If Zuckerberg wants to stay the CEO it might prove impossible to build trust, because people have state and it's really hard to reset that state. [1]: One of the things that the Trump administration showed is that American journalists are very good at ferreting out secrets, but if you openly declare that you are doing something, they react with much less interest. But, as the article documents, Facebook has decided to be more controlling of their data, and curate what they release much more carefully. The fiasco where they decided to kill some reporting, then held off for a month on their own reports because it would have shown that Covid vaccine FUD was the most popular article on Facebook is exactly the sort of behavior that journalists salivate over and can make careers. Just releasing the data was a minor irritant every day, but Facebook managed to turn it into a much greater embarrassment that destroyed trust with the media and academics. Even this article, which claims to be sourced to multiple fairly senior executives who disagreed enough to leak this to the NYTimes is a clear sign of the massive problems facing Facebook.

jjulius 5y ago

Forgive my ignorance, but how is it overblown? The article discusses Facebook deciding to inject positive stories about itself into the news feed so that people think, "Oh, maybe they're not so bad." That's what the linked image is designed to do. That it says "from Facebook" is beside the point, and the article even says they would say it was from Facebook: "People essentially see posts with a Facebook logo that link to stories and websites published by the company and from third-party local news sites." The fact is that they're purposely injecting fluff pieces into news feeds to try to get people to forget negative news about the platform. The only thing the linked tweet does is confirm what's reported in the article. Edit: Previous tweets in that chain from Joe also don't lend themselves to trust. First, the comment about how they didn't quote him for saying, "There is zero change to News Feed ranking," which the article never said would be modified - there's no reason to quote him on that if that's not the claim they're making. They only said that more puff pieces would appear, not that their ranking for where they are placed relative to other content would be adjusted. All they said was that you'd see more, and according to Joe's confirmation of it's existence, that's true. Second, his comment about how the meeting never happened. The article cites six current and former employees as having discussed that meeting. All he offers as proof that it didn't happen is that the article doesn't name the attendees or the sources. I'm sorry, but that entire thread holds almost no water.

tablespoon 5y ago
>> A screenshot from the actual experiment: https://twitter.com/joeosborne/status/1440456340673949700 https://twitter.com/joeosborne/status/1440456340673949700 Looks like the article is overblown. > Edit: Previous tweets in that chain from Joe also don't lend themselves to trust. That tweet is from @joeosborne "a @Facebook spokesperson." Not someone who I'd trust to accurately and fully characterize Facebook's actions. Given their prior history, I'd expect something misleading that attempts to portray them in the absolute best light. He also seems to think journalists should take statements from company spokesmen as the absolute truth. That's not true, and especially not true for a company as untrustworthy as Facebook.
codelord 5y ago
You can see from comments here on hackernews that at least a few people interpreted this as a change to their ranking algorithm. Writing ambiguously to support a narrative is also misreporting. I know anti-FB sentiment is strong on hackernews. But seriously look at that screenshot and tell me what's wrong with that? How's that different from promotions by Apple on ios/app store, Microsoft on windows, twitter, google, youtube, etc. etc. They are just promoting their company on their own platform. When did your Facebook newsfeed become this untouchable sacred place where nothing beside chronological posts from your friends is allowed? I want to hate facebook as much as anyone else but I really don't see news here.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]