5 ms·

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

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.
isbvhodnvemrwvn 5y ago
Quite frankly I think it's the traditional media losing importance due to social media and making it look evil. The only way they can make money is by selling outrage.
- tayistay 5y ago
  Ok plausible theory. Can you prove it?
  - isbvhodnvemrwvn 5y ago
    How can I prove that someone has intent of doing something? You can take a look at the news revenue over the years and the efforts for getting paid for displaying headline in Google.
    - tayistay 5y ago
      Well, if you had some documents showing that some folks in the news industry really didn't think social media was that bad, but they just thought it was bad for the news business, so they conspired to make social media companies look evil, then that would prove your point. But until having something like that, you're just guessing.
EamonnMR 5y ago
Not everyone is subject to compromise via news feed. One of the interesting things about the Cambridge Analytica story was the idea that they got good at finding people vulnerable to radicalization via news feed. As for the reason for the hate, well, we have to deal with the radicalized people here in meatspace. It's a negative externality that we are subject to even if we aren't the target of the advertising.
pbalau 5y ago
I don't think I am exagerating on saying that the best thing that happened to humanity in the 21st century is Facebook's very naive way of doing things: it showed to some what is possible to do with technology. Unfortunatelly, for the vast majority of the "tech savy" wannabe crowd, the lesson they learned stopped at "Facebook is bad, mkay?" and since this is all they know, this is all they talk about.
ricardo81 5y ago
I don't get so much 'terrible' stuff, I deleted my account but re-signed up for a local cause. After ignoring "region to the West of me" local news, I've had to delete about 40 other regions spanning farther outwards. FB keep pushing more data for you to interact with which in itself is not exactly healthy. And it's easy to say ignore it, the simple fact it's in front of me, in the part of the screen where I'm reading new information is the problem. It's not radicalising, it's just an absolute time and life suck. If it weren't for COVID and lockdown I'm sure my local cause would prefer not to use Facebook.

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.

isbvhodnvemrwvn 5y ago

Quite frankly I think it's the traditional media losing importance due to social media and making it look evil. The only way they can make money is by selling outrage.

tayistay 5y ago
Ok plausible theory. Can you prove it?
- isbvhodnvemrwvn 5y ago
  How can I prove that someone has intent of doing something? You can take a look at the news revenue over the years and the efforts for getting paid for displaying headline in Google.
  - tayistay 5y ago
    Well, if you had some documents showing that some folks in the news industry really didn't think social media was that bad, but they just thought it was bad for the news business, so they conspired to make social media companies look evil, then that would prove your point. But until having something like that, you're just guessing.

EamonnMR 5y ago

Not everyone is subject to compromise via news feed. One of the interesting things about the Cambridge Analytica story was the idea that they got good at finding people vulnerable to radicalization via news feed. As for the reason for the hate, well, we have to deal with the radicalized people here in meatspace. It's a negative externality that we are subject to even if we aren't the target of the advertising.

pbalau 5y ago

I don't think I am exagerating on saying that the best thing that happened to humanity in the 21st century is Facebook's very naive way of doing things: it showed to some what is possible to do with technology. Unfortunatelly, for the vast majority of the "tech savy" wannabe crowd, the lesson they learned stopped at "Facebook is bad, mkay?" and since this is all they know, this is all they talk about.

ricardo81 5y ago

I don't get so much 'terrible' stuff, I deleted my account but re-signed up for a local cause. After ignoring "region to the West of me" local news, I've had to delete about 40 other regions spanning farther outwards. FB keep pushing more data for you to interact with which in itself is not exactly healthy. And it's easy to say ignore it, the simple fact it's in front of me, in the part of the screen where I'm reading new information is the problem. It's not radicalising, it's just an absolute time and life suck. If it weren't for COVID and lockdown I'm sure my local cause would prefer not to use Facebook.