13 ms·
Data wins arguments. One of my least favorite Facebook quotes. Bad data wins arguments, too. The misdirection term here is 'news feed ranking algorithm'... a
by gfosco 5y ago
Data wins arguments. One of my least favorite Facebook quotes. Bad data wins arguments, too.
The misdirection term here is 'news feed ranking algorithm'... and what that means in the experiment versus what you might think that means, huge difference. e.g. I think most would assume the algorithm is responsible for showing you an unknown post that a friend merely liked, but it's right there in the article as still happening.
The results and how people used it don't at all say to me that they enjoyed it less, it shows explicit care & intention to curate their own feed by hiding what they don't like.. which is how it should be. If they find the group posts too overwhelming, they can mute/unfollow/leave, or other methods of grouping posts can be explored.
But look, they did this one bad science experiment, and now it's taken as fact and becomes folklore.
- jensensbutton 5y agoGiven they made MORE money in this experiment, I suspect the decision to roll it back was more nuanced than a naive analysis and bad science experiment.
- gfosco 5y agoThe goal wasn't more money, there are more variables involved. One way to look at it might be, short-term more money vs long-term total narrative control.
- KaiserPro 5y agogiven that the algorithm is never going to be as effective as an editorial department, I don't understand the "total narrative control" argument. Facebook and instagram are social phase locked loops. Open a new instagram account, search for content that you like, like them, then what how it shove more/similar stuff into your feed. Now pivot to a different subject, only like that, and watch how your feed moves to that subject more. its not really rocket science, or indeed anything overly complex.
- throwaway0a5e 5y agoOpaque ML algorithm can't tip off the press to misdeeds the same way a disgruntled editor can.
- mikem170 5y agoPutting users into echo chambers is not narrative control? They could have made the algorithm so it showed users brand new different material, or opposing material, or more details, or related material from friends instead of corporations, or from people geographically nearby, or chronological, or let users find their own material and/or build their own feeds. Instead of any of that they show them similar material, like you said, effectively putting everyone in echo chambers.
- selwynii 5y agoBut people don't like new material. The top comment mentions people hiding posts from pages they don't follow - alternatively, that's called showing brand new content you haven't seen before. Opposing material suggests a binary, sure that makes some sense in a US centric political spectrum, but what's the opposing viewpoint to my friends photo from hiking last weekend? Geographically nearby could mean my neighbor 5 doors down who I don't know anything about and am not friends with. Do you think, if she were a privacy-concerned individual like many people on HN are, she'd be happy to know I saw her post about her new flowers? It's less narrative control and more human condition - if anything I'm glad they tried this experiment. Chronological feeds are how you end up with news teams spamming posts every three minutes, and you having to hit the hide button every time.
- s17n 5y agoYou can say that explicit curation and intention is the way things "should be" as much as you like, but all the evidence suggests that most people strongly prefer automated curation.
- mikem170 5y agoGiving users the option to toggle the algorithm on/off would be nice.
- ringworld 5y agoIt used to be that way. Then they started "forgetting" everyone's setting to turn it off (go back to the original reverse time based feed), then they took the option away. After purchasing Instagram they did the same exact thing, FB engineering specifically removed the feature on their platforms.
- munk-a 5y agoNot all automated curation is built equal and boiling it down to just one thing really confuses things. I absolutely adore YouTube's automated curation since the primary goal there is just to steer me to things I'll find interesting - the ads are present on all content and so YT just wants to keep me on the platform for as long as possible. When it comes to Facebook it always feels like I'm being steered towards topics that yield monetizable verbiage. If a friend likes an upcoming concert I'll definitely hear about it loud and clear - while as an upcoming picnic or personal project being planned is less likely to float to the top.
- bentcorner 5y agoI wonder how much wagging the dog FB has ended up doing to everyday activities? Do people give more weight to doing things that have a better opportunity for more FB engagement? (Thinking more on this I don't think FB is the sole culprit here)
- azinman2 5y agoYTs recommendations are infamous for getting people radicalized, into conspiracy theories, and filled with misinformation.
- 345344f34f 5y agoOne of my most frustrating experiences in tech when advocating for the consumer are data scientists that attempt to misrepresent the data. Meanwhile you have a company CEO at all hands telling people to "trust the data" What the fuck?? How can data be trusted when the people responsible for its custody are not truthful about what the data represents??????