3 ms·

The clearest take I've seen on this: https://www.piratewires.com/p/bombshell https://www.piratewires.com/p/bombshell The money quote, in my opinion: > The thi

The clearest take I've seen on this: https://www.piratewires.com/p/bombshell https://www.piratewires.com/p/bombshell The money quote, in my opinion: > The thing is, we’re not really asking for Facebook to control itself, we’re asking Facebook to control other people.

btmiller 5y ago
But they are the ones that have enabled the mass accessibility of many-to-many communication. That should come with great responsibility.
- buitreVirtual 5y ago
  And the ones who profit by exacerbating toxicity.
- cheeseomlit 5y ago
  With great responsibility comes great power
- convexfunction 5y ago
  Maybe, and the author makes a similar point. I don't think the current discourse, based mainly on insinuations that FB/IG actually harms people on the basis of a small fraction of struggling kids reporting that they feel worse when they look at Instagram, actually gets us any closer to an implementation of greater responsibility with benefits that plausibly outweigh costs.
AlexandrB 5y ago
> The thing is, we’re not really asking for Facebook to control itself, we’re asking Facebook to control other people. But it already does. That's it's job. That's what advertising is for. I suppose "control" is a tad strong, but that's the dream of every advertiser - to deliver a message to exactly right person at the exactly right time so that they take a desired action (buy, vote, post, etc). Whenever this debate comes up I can't help but wonder what a non-commercial (non-profit?) version of Facebook would look like. I'm sure people would still post stuff for likes, but would it still be a career path for "influencers" where they use their popularity to push products of dubious value with little disclosure? Would there be an "algorithmic feed" whose contents you have little control over? Would posts by your friends be drowned out by "high engagement content"? Advertising fundamentally alters the medium that carries it. It happened with cable TV (remember cliffhangers before commercial breaks?), and it has happened to the internet. Let's not pretend Facebook's shitty products are somehow the natural state of things. Better social media ("prestige" social media?) might be possible.
- convexfunction 5y ago
  Not that you explicitly claimed otherwise, but the focal point of the moment's discourse seems to be a small fraction of teens who reported suicidal ideation citing content they see on Instagram as the first thing that triggers suicidal ideation for them, and I very, very strongly doubt that the relevant content is often ads, or even content that could be argued to result from the fact that the platform is ad-supported.
- whimsicalism 5y ago
  > Whenever this debate comes up I can't help but wonder what a non-commercial (non-profit?) version of Facebook would look like. I'm sure people would still post stuff for likes, but would it still be a career path for "influencers" where they use their popularity to push products of dubious value with little disclosure? How would FB being non-profit prevent individuals advertising products on their own page? This is the problem with most of these critiques of FB: they're not about FB. What you don't like is people being able to communicate easily with each other and reach a wide audience.
  - AlexandrB 5y ago
    > What you don't like is people being able to communicate easily with each other and reach a wide audience. That's what the internet allowed with blogs. And blogs were (and are) relatively great! What's the difference? Blogs could not be shoved in your face by manipulating your "timeline" based on commercial considerations of "engagement". SEO has somewhat damaged blogs over time (another victim of ad-funded incentives), but IMHO it's a far better situation than Facebook. > How would FB being non-profit prevent individuals advertising products on their own page? Maybe it wouldn't but maybe that content wouldn't end up in everyone's face as often either. It's hard to say because we don't have a non-commercial social network to compare to. The best example of a non-commercial internet service is Wikipedia - unfortunately this isn't a great analog. It's hard to reverse engineer which of Facebook's worst features are there because of commercial considerations, but surely some of them are. Things like the algorithmic feed or suppressing content from people you explicitly follow (unless they pay up) are there to squeeze more money from existing users.

btmiller 5y ago

But they are the ones that have enabled the mass accessibility of many-to-many communication. That should come with great responsibility.

buitreVirtual 5y ago
And the ones who profit by exacerbating toxicity.
cheeseomlit 5y ago
With great responsibility comes great power
convexfunction 5y ago
Maybe, and the author makes a similar point. I don't think the current discourse, based mainly on insinuations that FB/IG actually harms people on the basis of a small fraction of struggling kids reporting that they feel worse when they look at Instagram, actually gets us any closer to an implementation of greater responsibility with benefits that plausibly outweigh costs.

AlexandrB 5y ago

> The thing is, we’re not really asking for Facebook to control itself, we’re asking Facebook to control other people. But it already does. That's it's job. That's what advertising is for. I suppose "control" is a tad strong, but that's the dream of every advertiser - to deliver a message to exactly right person at the exactly right time so that they take a desired action (buy, vote, post, etc). Whenever this debate comes up I can't help but wonder what a non-commercial (non-profit?) version of Facebook would look like. I'm sure people would still post stuff for likes, but would it still be a career path for "influencers" where they use their popularity to push products of dubious value with little disclosure? Would there be an "algorithmic feed" whose contents you have little control over? Would posts by your friends be drowned out by "high engagement content"? Advertising fundamentally alters the medium that carries it. It happened with cable TV (remember cliffhangers before commercial breaks?), and it has happened to the internet. Let's not pretend Facebook's shitty products are somehow the natural state of things. Better social media ("prestige" social media?) might be possible.

convexfunction 5y ago
Not that you explicitly claimed otherwise, but the focal point of the moment's discourse seems to be a small fraction of teens who reported suicidal ideation citing content they see on Instagram as the first thing that triggers suicidal ideation for them, and I very, very strongly doubt that the relevant content is often ads, or even content that could be argued to result from the fact that the platform is ad-supported.
whimsicalism 5y ago
> Whenever this debate comes up I can't help but wonder what a non-commercial (non-profit?) version of Facebook would look like. I'm sure people would still post stuff for likes, but would it still be a career path for "influencers" where they use their popularity to push products of dubious value with little disclosure? How would FB being non-profit prevent individuals advertising products on their own page? This is the problem with most of these critiques of FB: they're not about FB. What you don't like is people being able to communicate easily with each other and reach a wide audience.
- AlexandrB 5y ago
  > What you don't like is people being able to communicate easily with each other and reach a wide audience. That's what the internet allowed with blogs. And blogs were (and are) relatively great! What's the difference? Blogs could not be shoved in your face by manipulating your "timeline" based on commercial considerations of "engagement". SEO has somewhat damaged blogs over time (another victim of ad-funded incentives), but IMHO it's a far better situation than Facebook. > How would FB being non-profit prevent individuals advertising products on their own page? Maybe it wouldn't but maybe that content wouldn't end up in everyone's face as often either. It's hard to say because we don't have a non-commercial social network to compare to. The best example of a non-commercial internet service is Wikipedia - unfortunately this isn't a great analog. It's hard to reverse engineer which of Facebook's worst features are there because of commercial considerations, but surely some of them are. Things like the algorithmic feed or suppressing content from people you explicitly follow (unless they pay up) are there to squeeze more money from existing users.