5 ms·

Have you people considered like, not using it? I, for one, enjoy Facebook and am happy it exists even if some aspects are not to my liking.

colinmhayes 5y ago
The problem is that Facebook is disinforming people and just getting rid of everyone isn't an option.
- entropyneur 5y ago
  By "Facebook disinforming" people do you mean people disinforming people using Facebook? Or has Facebook inc. itself been a source of misinformation?
  - colinmhayes 5y ago
    Facebook's algorithm prioritizes divisive political content that is commonly disinformation because it increases engagement. Yes, people are creating and sharing the disinformation, but facebook itself is choosing to rank that content highly.
    - entropyneur 5y ago
      So Facebook facilitates the spread of engaging content which happens to include disinformation because due to our imperfect nature people like to engage with disinformation. Seems like wishing that Facebook wouldn't exist because of this is analogous to wishing that airfare wouldn't exist because it facilitates global spread of infections. Also, the word "divisive" gives me shivers. It's better to be divided than to be united in a fallacy. And in many cases getting divided is our only hope of ever arriving at the truth.
      - colinmhayes 5y ago
        It's not the divisiveness that upsets me, I agree with "And in many cases getting divided is our only hope of ever arriving at the truth." It's the fact that facebook is propagandizing people because it's shoving the divisive content in their face nonstop without understanding if it's disinformation first. There will always be false content on social media, but I don't think that means facebook gets a pass for actively encouraging it.
      - toss1 5y ago
        It is not merely "happens to include disinformation" It is systematic, algorithmic preferential amplification of disinformation (at the expense of real information) based on 'engagement' vs truth value, moral compass, or societal value. And it is allowing orgs like Cambridge Analytica to harvest vast amounts of PII and use that to specifically tune and target the dezinformatsiya. If you think of Fb as some kind of passive carrier you are horribly outdated - it hasn't done that in decades. FB curates and manages every word of data coming across it's servers at a scale and effectiveness that no actual news organization has evrer conceived of, let alone implemented. And yet they hide behind the "we're only a carrier" fallacy. It's like the fat epidemic - sure, you can blame each bite of what to eat on the individual, but the rapidity of the overall trend makes in undeniable that the entire food supply has been skewed, limiting the choices such that only those who work diligently to avoid all the usual choices typically remain healthy.
  - weaksauce 5y ago
    https://www.relevantmagazine.com/culture/tech-gaming/almost-all-of-facebooks-top-christian-pages-are-run-by-foreign-troll-farms/ https://www.relevantmagazine.com/culture/tech-gaming/almost-... well not just mary-sue down the road disinforming but that of nation level actors doing so to spread discord to the detriment of their enemies. facebook amplified the velocity and reach of this disinformation.
JCharante 5y ago
I don't really get the Facebook hate, how are people ending up with such "terrible" stuff on their news feed? I haven't really changed my default settings and all I see are posts from my friends, the same ads over and over again, and posts from my groups (recipes, potlucks, language practice meetups, going to museums, rooms for rent, questions from expats). There's absolutely nothing that could "radicalize" me. If you add garbage to your RSS feed reader I wouldn't blame the software, I would blame the person.
- tayistay 5y ago
  Because they want to see it, and then the algorithm feeds them more, intensifying their beliefs.
- jsjohnst 5y ago
  > how are people ending up with such "terrible" stuff on their news feed? Because their FB friends post it, or the groups they are in post it, and they interact with it (even if to say "stop posting this crap" to their family members). I used to see it a lot, then I unfollowed (but stayed "friends") with the family members who posted that crap or marked the content "don't show me this" and now I rarely see it.
  - JCharante 5y ago
    I had a friend from high school who posted too much political stuff (nothing outrageous, I am just very apathetic) so I unfollowed him because it's not what I want to see. It's like unsubscribing from a channel because they're boring. I suppose that commenting or arguing with him would have the algorithm look at the words used, see that there is more interaction than normal, and promote posts from strangers that also contain those words? That's certainly how I would have designed the news feed algorithm. So is a problem then that the algorithm can't distinguish between good interactions and bad interactions? (If it were me and I could parse comments with emotional intent to determine what are bad interactions, then I would try to learn from those bad interactions and minimize them) If so then the duct tape fix is to just unfollow rather than let the algorithm think you're interested in that type of content. The proper fix would be to minimize bad interactions, but I guess that's where that whistleblower person is going (but that will minimize time spent on FB, minimizing revenue dun dun dun) It's not rocket science, every user who uses YouTube and hears "comment on this video for the algorithm" knows that commenting = interaction that is perceived by the algorithm as a sign to get this seen by more people. So obviously commenting on stuff you hate will just get it seen by more people & get more stuff recommended. It's like if I hate comedy clips and I keep clicking on each clip in order to downvote it. Of course I'll get recommended more clips.
cybernautique 5y ago
Unfortunately, I'm not given the option about whether I interact with Facebook. Their aggressive insinuation into the fabric of most websites ensures that there are very few places I can go without Mark Zuckerberg personally stalking me, along with a legion of inhuman advertisers. Facebook and its sites can't stay down long enough; if they were offline forever, it wouldn't be enough. Even if this doesn't affect their advertising services, any hit to the FB ecosystem is a societal good.
sngz 5y ago
i don't use it. still wish it didn't exist so my parents don't upload all my pictures onto there and their personal information, then when they hear about leaks or get their FB hijacked I'm the one dealing with it. This is before even considering all the other messed up stuff. Society is better off without it.
- entropyneur 5y ago
  Hmm. I wish cars wouldn't exist so my cat wouldn't have been ran over by one.
  - sngz 5y ago
    not sure how that is relevant analogy... but if you choose to have an outdoor cat then that's the risk you accepted. There's a reason some people choose to keep their cats indoors.

colinmhayes 5y ago

The problem is that Facebook is disinforming people and just getting rid of everyone isn't an option.

entropyneur 5y ago
By "Facebook disinforming" people do you mean people disinforming people using Facebook? Or has Facebook inc. itself been a source of misinformation?
- colinmhayes 5y ago
  Facebook's algorithm prioritizes divisive political content that is commonly disinformation because it increases engagement. Yes, people are creating and sharing the disinformation, but facebook itself is choosing to rank that content highly.
  - entropyneur 5y ago
    So Facebook facilitates the spread of engaging content which happens to include disinformation because due to our imperfect nature people like to engage with disinformation. Seems like wishing that Facebook wouldn't exist because of this is analogous to wishing that airfare wouldn't exist because it facilitates global spread of infections. Also, the word "divisive" gives me shivers. It's better to be divided than to be united in a fallacy. And in many cases getting divided is our only hope of ever arriving at the truth.
    - colinmhayes 5y ago
      It's not the divisiveness that upsets me, I agree with "And in many cases getting divided is our only hope of ever arriving at the truth." It's the fact that facebook is propagandizing people because it's shoving the divisive content in their face nonstop without understanding if it's disinformation first. There will always be false content on social media, but I don't think that means facebook gets a pass for actively encouraging it.
    - toss1 5y ago
      It is not merely "happens to include disinformation" It is systematic, algorithmic preferential amplification of disinformation (at the expense of real information) based on 'engagement' vs truth value, moral compass, or societal value. And it is allowing orgs like Cambridge Analytica to harvest vast amounts of PII and use that to specifically tune and target the dezinformatsiya. If you think of Fb as some kind of passive carrier you are horribly outdated - it hasn't done that in decades. FB curates and manages every word of data coming across it's servers at a scale and effectiveness that no actual news organization has evrer conceived of, let alone implemented. And yet they hide behind the "we're only a carrier" fallacy. It's like the fat epidemic - sure, you can blame each bite of what to eat on the individual, but the rapidity of the overall trend makes in undeniable that the entire food supply has been skewed, limiting the choices such that only those who work diligently to avoid all the usual choices typically remain healthy.
- weaksauce 5y ago
  https://www.relevantmagazine.com/culture/tech-gaming/almost-all-of-facebooks-top-christian-pages-are-run-by-foreign-troll-farms/ https://www.relevantmagazine.com/culture/tech-gaming/almost-... well not just mary-sue down the road disinforming but that of nation level actors doing so to spread discord to the detriment of their enemies. facebook amplified the velocity and reach of this disinformation.

JCharante 5y ago

I don't really get the Facebook hate, how are people ending up with such "terrible" stuff on their news feed? I haven't really changed my default settings and all I see are posts from my friends, the same ads over and over again, and posts from my groups (recipes, potlucks, language practice meetups, going to museums, rooms for rent, questions from expats). There's absolutely nothing that could "radicalize" me. If you add garbage to your RSS feed reader I wouldn't blame the software, I would blame the person.

tayistay 5y ago
Because they want to see it, and then the algorithm feeds them more, intensifying their beliefs.
jsjohnst 5y ago
> how are people ending up with such "terrible" stuff on their news feed? Because their FB friends post it, or the groups they are in post it, and they interact with it (even if to say "stop posting this crap" to their family members). I used to see it a lot, then I unfollowed (but stayed "friends") with the family members who posted that crap or marked the content "don't show me this" and now I rarely see it.
- JCharante 5y ago
  I had a friend from high school who posted too much political stuff (nothing outrageous, I am just very apathetic) so I unfollowed him because it's not what I want to see. It's like unsubscribing from a channel because they're boring. I suppose that commenting or arguing with him would have the algorithm look at the words used, see that there is more interaction than normal, and promote posts from strangers that also contain those words? That's certainly how I would have designed the news feed algorithm. So is a problem then that the algorithm can't distinguish between good interactions and bad interactions? (If it were me and I could parse comments with emotional intent to determine what are bad interactions, then I would try to learn from those bad interactions and minimize them) If so then the duct tape fix is to just unfollow rather than let the algorithm think you're interested in that type of content. The proper fix would be to minimize bad interactions, but I guess that's where that whistleblower person is going (but that will minimize time spent on FB, minimizing revenue dun dun dun) It's not rocket science, every user who uses YouTube and hears "comment on this video for the algorithm" knows that commenting = interaction that is perceived by the algorithm as a sign to get this seen by more people. So obviously commenting on stuff you hate will just get it seen by more people & get more stuff recommended. It's like if I hate comedy clips and I keep clicking on each clip in order to downvote it. Of course I'll get recommended more clips.

cybernautique 5y ago

Unfortunately, I'm not given the option about whether I interact with Facebook. Their aggressive insinuation into the fabric of most websites ensures that there are very few places I can go without Mark Zuckerberg personally stalking me, along with a legion of inhuman advertisers. Facebook and its sites can't stay down long enough; if they were offline forever, it wouldn't be enough. Even if this doesn't affect their advertising services, any hit to the FB ecosystem is a societal good.

sngz 5y ago

i don't use it. still wish it didn't exist so my parents don't upload all my pictures onto there and their personal information, then when they hear about leaks or get their FB hijacked I'm the one dealing with it. This is before even considering all the other messed up stuff. Society is better off without it.

entropyneur 5y ago
Hmm. I wish cars wouldn't exist so my cat wouldn't have been ran over by one.
- sngz 5y ago
  not sure how that is relevant analogy... but if you choose to have an outdoor cat then that's the risk you accepted. There's a reason some people choose to keep their cats indoors.