5 ms·

Uh, sharing news articles is most of what people do here on this site. Why is it uniquely bad when people do it on Facebook instead?

xp84 3y ago
My guess why HN isn’t a problem the way FB is? No ads. Thus, no engagement metrics to optimize for because HN isn’t even monetized that I know of (and hopefully doesn’t need to become one?) With no engagement needing to be goosed we don’t need an algorithm to make sure we see the most outraging things possible. We just see what’s interesting to the whole community. Radicalization online is a serious problem and I think the reverse qualities of the above, which FB, Twitter, and YouTube are perfect examples of, is a big part of how it happened. HN pushes us toward the average interests of hackers. FB amplifies whatever interests repeatably get your attention until they become obsessions. (I stopped following anything or anyone political on FB and YouTube, so that they only makes me more engaged in my nerdy, wholesome interests. I think I’m in the minority though)
bandyaboot 3y ago
I should have phrased it better, my intention wasn't to focus responsibility on typical FB users. It's posting and consuming news on a platform that deliberately puts them in an information bubble that feeds into and reinforces their existing viewpoints. It's what keeps people there and drives FB profits, but it causes harm to society. The responsibility is on FB and those knowingly feeding toxic content into it.
qup 3y ago
Lack of moderation or filtering of the content (via voting)
neltnerb 3y ago
I mean, I gave up on Facebook long ago to be honest, but this is a news aggregator website that is specifically about sharing links to articles of news or interest. Facebook... I mean... it wasn't pitched to be that? It was supposed to connect you to each other, not be an algorithmic view into the universe. Sure, sharing news can be a big part of that, and talking about news too, but every site doesn't have to be everything. Why would my personal social group (i.e. facebook friends) make sense to combine with the random strangers on here who discuss technical posts? Sure there's some overlap in audience but it just doesn't seem like a necessary compromise to make.
- frumper 3y ago
  Facebook has a lot of topical groups where you likely don't know anyone anymore than you do here aside from they have expressed interest in a topic enough to join the same group as you.
  - neltnerb 3y ago
    Sure, but I don't think there's any particularly obvious reason why Facebook would be the place for a topical group to set up shop. I think it is a bad place for a topical group because you cannot read the posts without logging in. If you're in the Facebook ecosystem maybe this is less visible. But if friends plan an event in a Facebook group they are excluding me and others who don't use Facebook for many valid but irrelevant reasons. One such reason is that pseudo-anonymity is crucial for a lot of people for professional or personal reasons, and it's way easier to support that elsewhere. Others include data privacy policies. Maybe there's not a great choice that has the right blend of ease of access and ease of setup. But I think Facebook is demonstrably bad because of the requirements of logging in to read at all and to enforce that your profile has a real name.
hutzlibu 3y ago
Oh, we are of course a higher species and should not be bound to the rules of the plebes. /s
- hoosieree 3y ago
  The key difference is that HN is essentially plain text.
  - roywiggins 3y ago
    The bulk of Facebook comment threads under news articles is just plain text, too.
Applejinx 3y ago
This site is external content oriented, not 'intimately know the commenter and their life' oriented.
- roywiggins 3y ago
  Facebook groups are similarly oriented, usually.

xp84 3y ago

My guess why HN isn’t a problem the way FB is? No ads. Thus, no engagement metrics to optimize for because HN isn’t even monetized that I know of (and hopefully doesn’t need to become one?) With no engagement needing to be goosed we don’t need an algorithm to make sure we see the most outraging things possible. We just see what’s interesting to the whole community. Radicalization online is a serious problem and I think the reverse qualities of the above, which FB, Twitter, and YouTube are perfect examples of, is a big part of how it happened. HN pushes us toward the average interests of hackers. FB amplifies whatever interests repeatably get your attention until they become obsessions. (I stopped following anything or anyone political on FB and YouTube, so that they only makes me more engaged in my nerdy, wholesome interests. I think I’m in the minority though)

bandyaboot 3y ago

I should have phrased it better, my intention wasn't to focus responsibility on typical FB users. It's posting and consuming news on a platform that deliberately puts them in an information bubble that feeds into and reinforces their existing viewpoints. It's what keeps people there and drives FB profits, but it causes harm to society. The responsibility is on FB and those knowingly feeding toxic content into it.

qup 3y ago

Lack of moderation or filtering of the content (via voting)

neltnerb 3y ago

I mean, I gave up on Facebook long ago to be honest, but this is a news aggregator website that is specifically about sharing links to articles of news or interest. Facebook... I mean... it wasn't pitched to be that? It was supposed to connect you to each other, not be an algorithmic view into the universe. Sure, sharing news can be a big part of that, and talking about news too, but every site doesn't have to be everything. Why would my personal social group (i.e. facebook friends) make sense to combine with the random strangers on here who discuss technical posts? Sure there's some overlap in audience but it just doesn't seem like a necessary compromise to make.

frumper 3y ago
Facebook has a lot of topical groups where you likely don't know anyone anymore than you do here aside from they have expressed interest in a topic enough to join the same group as you.
- neltnerb 3y ago
  Sure, but I don't think there's any particularly obvious reason why Facebook would be the place for a topical group to set up shop. I think it is a bad place for a topical group because you cannot read the posts without logging in. If you're in the Facebook ecosystem maybe this is less visible. But if friends plan an event in a Facebook group they are excluding me and others who don't use Facebook for many valid but irrelevant reasons. One such reason is that pseudo-anonymity is crucial for a lot of people for professional or personal reasons, and it's way easier to support that elsewhere. Others include data privacy policies. Maybe there's not a great choice that has the right blend of ease of access and ease of setup. But I think Facebook is demonstrably bad because of the requirements of logging in to read at all and to enforce that your profile has a real name.

hutzlibu 3y ago

Oh, we are of course a higher species and should not be bound to the rules of the plebes. /s

hoosieree 3y ago
The key difference is that HN is essentially plain text.
- roywiggins 3y ago
  The bulk of Facebook comment threads under news articles is just plain text, too.

Applejinx 3y ago

This site is external content oriented, not 'intimately know the commenter and their life' oriented.

roywiggins 3y ago
Facebook groups are similarly oriented, usually.