6 ms·

It's much worse than giving the village idiot a megaphone. Facebook (and most other socials) prioritize content to maximize engagement, and (big surprise) the v

by api 5y ago

It's much worse than giving the village idiot a megaphone. Facebook (and most other socials) prioritize content to maximize engagement, and (big surprise) the village idiot maximizes engagement. Facebook is a machine tuned specifically to spread hate and bad ideas because that's what maximizes the time people spend on Facebook. I thought of a good analogy a while back. Lets say someone walks past you and says "hi" and smiles. Lets say someone else then walks past you and punches you in the face. Which interaction maximizes engagement? Well that's the interaction and content that social media is going to amplify. Social media companies are the tobacco companies of technology. They make billions by lobotomizing the body politic.

freediver 5y ago
> Lets say someone walks past you and says "hi" and smiles. Lets say someone else then walks past you and punches you in the face. Which interaction maximizes engagement? Likely the first one. Could also lead to a literal 'engagement'.
- whimsicalism 5y ago
  If you're optimizing for time spent in the interaction, which is what FB does - then probably the punch in the face will cause you to stay on the scene for longer, whether to yell at the person, fight back, when you call the cops, etc. The "hi" is returned with a "hi" back and you both continue walking.
  - freediver 5y ago
    Likely scenario is that the interaction stops the moment you are floored by being punched in the face. You may stay on the scene longer, but the perpetuator would likely take off. Also answering to hi and a smile with a hi and smile _could_ in fact be the right way to optimize for time spent in this interaction because it has low probability but very high impact outcomes as far as time spent goes (dating/marriage).
- IntrepidWorm 5y ago
  Not on a busy streetcorner. A fistfight tends to attract much more attention than a passing greeting. Facebook is a very busy streetcorner.
ricardobayes 5y ago
Supposedly they were working on detuning this effect.
soyiuz 5y ago
True, but the financial incentives of many (most?) companies doesn't align with public benefits (see pollution, plastics, diet etc.) Why is social media singled out in our demands for them to act morally good, instead of just profitable?
- alisonkisk 5y ago
  They aren't singled out.
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  > Why is social media singled out in our demands for them to act morally good, instead of just profitable? It's not. We're so used to being totally unregulated in tech that even minor oversight can be spun as burdensome.
  - 18pfsmt 5y ago
    The question, as always, is who watches the watchmen? We saw what happened with broadcast and telecom regulation for phone and radio/tv in the USA. ABC, CBS, and NBC held a virtual monopoly until cable news 60 years later. AT&T/Ma Bell did likewise. It was horrible and arguably retarded innovation and diversity of viewpoints for many years.
- greggman3 5y ago
  I don't believe FB's algos truly maximize profit. I think they are short sited. Imagine a food company did metrics that showed the most popular food was hamburgers, so they kept optimizing and optimizing trying to serve nothing but hamburgers. It arguably wouldn't work and they'd be giving up tons of market share and $$$$$$ FB (and Twitter) seem to be trying to optimize where they believe everyone wants the same thing. Unfortunately for them, when myself and lots of others try their services we find it's shoveling stuff at us we don't want. Instead of driving our engagement it drives us away. There is tons of content I'd like to see on Twitter but every time I check it, now down to about once a month, they shovel so much shit I'm absolutely uninterested in at me that I just remember why I don't look and I leave. If they'd let me opt out of their recommendations my engagement would go way up and over time I'd follow or and more people. Instead they just drive me away. The same is true for FB though in different ways. They try to fill my newsfeed with stuff I'm not interested in hoping to get me to spend more time. Instead it just prompted me to delete the mobile app and only use the website on desktop since some extension helps me filter their crap out. My usage without the mobile app is probably 25% what it was and falling. Entirely their fault for removing choice and assuming everyone wants the same thing.

by api 5y ago

freediver 5y ago

> Lets say someone walks past you and says "hi" and smiles. Lets say someone else then walks past you and punches you in the face. Which interaction maximizes engagement? Likely the first one. Could also lead to a literal 'engagement'.

whimsicalism 5y ago
If you're optimizing for time spent in the interaction, which is what FB does - then probably the punch in the face will cause you to stay on the scene for longer, whether to yell at the person, fight back, when you call the cops, etc. The "hi" is returned with a "hi" back and you both continue walking.
- freediver 5y ago
  Likely scenario is that the interaction stops the moment you are floored by being punched in the face. You may stay on the scene longer, but the perpetuator would likely take off. Also answering to hi and a smile with a hi and smile _could_ in fact be the right way to optimize for time spent in this interaction because it has low probability but very high impact outcomes as far as time spent goes (dating/marriage).
IntrepidWorm 5y ago
Not on a busy streetcorner. A fistfight tends to attract much more attention than a passing greeting. Facebook is a very busy streetcorner.

ricardobayes 5y ago

Supposedly they were working on detuning this effect.

soyiuz 5y ago

True, but the financial incentives of many (most?) companies doesn't align with public benefits (see pollution, plastics, diet etc.) Why is social media singled out in our demands for them to act morally good, instead of just profitable?

alisonkisk 5y ago
They aren't singled out.
JumpCrisscross 5y ago
> Why is social media singled out in our demands for them to act morally good, instead of just profitable? It's not. We're so used to being totally unregulated in tech that even minor oversight can be spun as burdensome.
- 18pfsmt 5y ago
  The question, as always, is who watches the watchmen? We saw what happened with broadcast and telecom regulation for phone and radio/tv in the USA. ABC, CBS, and NBC held a virtual monopoly until cable news 60 years later. AT&T/Ma Bell did likewise. It was horrible and arguably retarded innovation and diversity of viewpoints for many years.
greggman3 5y ago
I don't believe FB's algos truly maximize profit. I think they are short sited. Imagine a food company did metrics that showed the most popular food was hamburgers, so they kept optimizing and optimizing trying to serve nothing but hamburgers. It arguably wouldn't work and they'd be giving up tons of market share and $$$$$$ FB (and Twitter) seem to be trying to optimize where they believe everyone wants the same thing. Unfortunately for them, when myself and lots of others try their services we find it's shoveling stuff at us we don't want. Instead of driving our engagement it drives us away. There is tons of content I'd like to see on Twitter but every time I check it, now down to about once a month, they shovel so much shit I'm absolutely uninterested in at me that I just remember why I don't look and I leave. If they'd let me opt out of their recommendations my engagement would go way up and over time I'd follow or and more people. Instead they just drive me away. The same is true for FB though in different ways. They try to fill my newsfeed with stuff I'm not interested in hoping to get me to spend more time. Instead it just prompted me to delete the mobile app and only use the website on desktop since some extension helps me filter their crap out. My usage without the mobile app is probably 25% what it was and falling. Entirely their fault for removing choice and assuming everyone wants the same thing.