9 ms·
Controversial creators are benefiting from monetization programs run by Meta
- Growtika 2mo agoEspecially before elections, it feels like they rewards people for being toxic
- seydor 2mo agoCan't they just do it with AI ?
- graemep 2mo agoRagebait is what FB runs on. A lot of these people do not even believe what they say. https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2025-11-16/king-of-slop-how-anti-migrant-ai-content-made-one-sri-lankan-influencer-rich https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2025-11-16/kin...
- miladyincontrol 2mo agoFB and IG reels both. Twitter gets a lot of rightfully owed criticism about it's fair share but its always weird to me seeing people slam twitter then go right on to IG or some other meta owned app as if its significantly different.
- BoxOfRain 2mo agoI'm so glad I got myself off Instagram and Reddit, the longer I go without them the more I realise what massive cognitohazards both of them are if you spend too much time on them. Different mechanisms but both were much more of a net drain on me than I realised before leaving them.
- basisword 2mo agoI use both IG and Twitter. IG reels for me are largely funny videos, stuff I follow, and stuff I'm interested in. On Twitter I only follow tech stuff and yet about 20% of the stuff in my 'recommended' feed is racist, violent, and stuff I have zero interest in. Even if you hit the 'non interested' button they continue to shove it down your throat.
- lukan 2mo agoIs it ethical wrong in this case, to wish those persons to get beaten up one day, by one of the people where they fueled their hate (who do take it out on other people for real)? So they reap what they sow?
- graemep 2mo agoUnderstandable but wrong.
- wizzwizz4 2mo agoWishing for something doesn't make it happen. So we should consider the effect that this wishing has on you: does wishing for vengeance make you a worse, or better, person? I'd try to avoid it, myself. If you're in a position where you're actually making the decision between letting these harmful practices continue, or putting a stop to them, that's different. But in this society, such people are more likely to be journalists and justices than vigilantes, so violence is still inappropriate. I think the scenario you described, of those incited to violence turning on the inciters with violence, is rather unlikely in reality, and it wouldn't necessarily be a good thing.
- bwb 2mo agoFB is built on rage bait, what else do they have beside cute videos?
- code_duck 2mo agoHorrible sympathy and religion bait like "I bet nobody will upvote this poor sick child with one leg, won't you? 1 amen = 1 prayer!"
- cube00 2mo agoThe algorithms do love a loneliness influencer https://www.theguardian.com/society/2026/jun/08/loneliness-influencers-why-are-people-suddenly-boasting-about-having-no-friends https://www.theguardian.com/society/2026/jun/08/loneliness-i...
- basisword 2mo agoConnecting with your friends and family. Unfortunately they abandoned this long ago because they weren't satisfied with making a mountain of money.
- Joeboy 2mo agoIf you use the friends or "all" feeds, you just get stuff about what your friends are up to and things from pages you've subscribed to. Or I do anyway. Also good for discovering events locally. Even the main feed isn't that bad for me. I guess it depends who your friends are and what you click on.
- bwb 2mo agoI removed all friends years ago. After I read about the Cambridge Analytica scandal, I quit, but I still need an account for a few groups I moderate. I think it has done more damage to this country than tobacco.
- vintermann 2mo agoI use FB for genealogy, because there are a lot of local groups where people post historical pictures, and older people in general are more active on Facebook. I've seen some local groups taken over by ragebait slop, though. Ironically, not even right wing rage bait slop. As far as I can tell, it finally boiled over for the admin of the page, who was a fairly liberal guy in an extremely rural place, when a local museum found out he was anti-Trump and stopped collaborating with him on local history (maybe for fear of other's reactions). Since then he's strictly reposted rage material from other places/people on Facebook, much of it clearly low effort/AI generated. I can't judge him, he lives there after all, and from this side of the ocean my political sympathies are definitively closer to him than to his enemies. Still :/
- efilife 2mo agoClickbait. Title makes it sound like they pay them directly to promote the platform, but they get paid through facebook content monetisation program
- chinathrow 2mo agoNot Clickbait. If you provide both: a) a service to earn money from content b) an algo promoting those videos then yes, IMHO they pay them directly for the content produced.
- pizza234 2mo agoThere is a distinction between: - Meta is commissioning or sponsoring rage-bait - Controversial creators are earning money through Facebook's content monetization program The title is ambiguous (at first, I thought it was the first case), and that's where the clickbait lies. No doubt that also the second case is a serious problem, but that's orthogonal to the ambiguity of the title.
- hhjinks 2mo agoThe distinction disappears when Facebook incentivizes the creation of the rage-bait content by prioritizing it in their algorithm. They can, at any moment, de-rank rage-bait, but they don't. That clearly signals "make rage-bait for our platform and we'll pay you." Contrast it with something like Elsagate. Google actioned the offending creators and attempted to deprioritize the kind of content that caused the controversy. Facebook would do the same if they didn't condone rage-bait.
- modo_mario 2mo ago>They can, at any moment, de-rank rage-bait, but they don't. That clearly signals "make rage-bait for our platform and we'll pay you." They don't because they don't select for it. They disporotionally push engagement but as far as I know don't have some indians or AI working tirelessly analysing countless videos to categorise them and rank them according to how ragebaity or controversial they are. Those things just rise to the top out of their effort to drive engagement and screentime. Any alternative that does the same will end up with similar result.
- florkbork 2mo agoI will call out the ABC here for taking a lot of the boots on the ground work that Tom Tanuki - independent journo (https://youtube.com/@tomtanuki https://youtube.com/@tomtanuki) has done with these far right slopaganda mills, slicing off the prior recognition and pretending it's a big new problem they just found. While a bit of this is new... Is it that new? Is this report that detailed? Hmmmmm
- embedding-shape 2mo agoWell, they claim they've done their own independent investigations, maybe started because of that bloggers/vloggers work, but still could be independent. What exactly is pointing towards it not being independent? It seems to be a detailed enough account of why the people break Facebook's own guidelines, yet receive money from Facebook.
- florkbork 2mo agoThey could be independent. But not acknowledging the source or inspiration? Or somehow being completely unaware of it? These mainstream journos would have to exist in a clean room environs.
- stevenwoo 2mo agoLast Week Tonight has also done multiple bits on this topic over the years, with one during the current season with list of prior offenses.
- fergie 2mo agoThe irony here is that ABC is the platfrom doing the rage-baiting.
- bilekas 2mo agoThis isn't anything new, it was abundantly clear after Facebook removed their fact checking team during covid that the priority was engagement over everything else, and rage bait is exactly that.
- trymas 2mo agoI just want to add, that they (FB and other big social media) probably understood what propaganda power they wield after 2016 facebook and cambridge analytica scandal. Personally - I think that this was the moment when silicon valley billionaires without shadow of a doubt understood that they have power what used to be reserved only for state actors. Bonus - for using that power they get fined penny on the dollar at most or just slap on the wrist. Update: now situation is even worse - states actively buy propaganda with social media companies, making those companies even more rich and influential.
- iamnothere 2mo agoCOVID-era “fact checking” went way beyond its remit and started to become a political tool. This had negative consequences for the average person’s trust in institutions of all kinds, because people really don’t like it when you attempt to police their individual political speech, even if it’s clearly inaccurate (as it so often is). It’s a good thing that it was removed. The problem with Meta is the monetization and engagement model, not the lack of fact checking.
- b40d-48b2-979e 2mo ago[flagged]
- iamnothere 2mo agoLol. “My president”. As if. This attitude you have is why we’re in a race to the bottom politically. I hope you live to see the fruits of your efforts, fully.
- bilekas 2mo ago> because people really don’t like it when you attempt to police their individual political speech I'm not sure that I buy that when people's health are at stake. When things are objectively false, and spreading that information will actively harm people, you have a responsibility and duty of care to point out falsities. But that's just me.
- cedws 2mo agoSocial media platforms have been paying out for attention seeking behaviour for a long time now. It’s why every YouTube video now has the same lame shocked face, red arrows, and clickbait title. It’s why assholes film themselves intentionally pissing people off for TikTok. It’s a whole category called nuisance tubing. I remember during COVID I saw a number of YouTubers swing from producing normal content into conspiracy shit. Their views ballooned. I saw a nasty feedback loop where the more controversial content received more engagement, hence more ad revenue, leading to more of it being produced. These platforms are actively degenerating society; there’s a reason the CCP is keeping tight control and reportedly rebalancing things to promote educational creators on China’s.
- shevy-java 2mo agoIndeed. What I noticed is that the quality of the videos went down on youtube in the last 3 years. Now, the quality was never as great as it used to be anyway, but Google changed various things that made youtube worse. They are slowly killing off youtube without realising it.
- Levitating 2mo agoA lot of channels got bought by private equity. YouTube is saturated with similar content so creators have to resort to clickbait to keep up. AI has allowed creators to increase their efficiency writing scripts. I don't know what you believe Google changed about YouTube, but I believe it has just made itself worse.
- brrk 2mo agoIt's difficult for me to understand what people are getting out of the youtube experience, as I'm pretty straight up intolerant of most of the traits of this kind of content - all I hear recently from the neighbours kid's tablets and phones is loads of stuff with too-fast too-intense mono-tone TTS. Such a shame that people take up against AI, rather than the people selecting and serving them slop.
- leonidasrup 2mo agoCCP is keeping tight control over social media platforms first and foremost to prevent spreading information which could topple CCP. "Last month 60 popular celebrity gossip sites were closed overnight for corrupting "core socialist values," and a new regulation released in May requires all online news portals to be managed by Communist Party-sanctioned editorial staff." https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-40896235 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-40896235
- fosron 2mo agoFacebook is still big in my country, Lithuania, and both rage-bait and other type of fringe content is rampant, and even worse after fact-checking was removed. It is wild, and with some outside actors (specific country that shall not be named) it is a big problem with political and social effects being felt IRL.
- soco 2mo agoAnd is Lithuania doing anything about it? In Romania Facebook and TikTok do whatever they please, and whatever they are paid to do, with complete impunity as the authorities actively do nothing at all.
- fosron 2mo agoOur police has a page called "Virtual Police Patrol" which allows reporting of these cases. Some of the worst trolls have been prosecuted and sentenced. But we're not doing much regarding Facebook itself, just cleaning up with the results of it.
- jeffybefffy519 2mo agoFact checking removal really made it way worse....
- shevy-java 2mo agoNow people understand why Suckerberg is called Suckerberg. Those greedy billionaires also keep on having ties to right wing nuts. Let's not forget Melon Usk with his suspicious right-arm-raising gestures (having done so twice, which is quite strange when you do the same gesture twice in a row - I mean there can be no doubt about this if you do it twice; twice is an accident?).
- ThunderSizzle 2mo agoHow is this any different than traditional media? Cable news creates fake problems and controversy constantly, and pay their news anchors well to do so. In return, many companies that rely on these problems, turn around and advertise on these networks. Social media is just following the same strategy.
- lonelyasacloud 2mo ago> How is this any different than traditional media? Scale, lower entry bar, lack of regulation.
- brookst 2mo agoSure, and Ebola and influenza share traits too. I’m not sure that makes them interchangeable though.
- matherial 2mo agoWhat are you trying to say? That Facebook should be excused because others also behave badly? Otherwise, we can dislike both things and it adds nothing to say "but why aren't your talking about the other thing instead". And for what it's worth, there is a pretty clear difference between the journalistic standards of FB bait and of the legacy media.
- LunaSea 2mo agoSocial media has been protected by the Safe Harbour rules because they had millions of users creating content which was difficult to monitor and moderate. If they start producing their own content they might get considered like a news organisation with a whole different set of rules being applied to them and Safe Harbour being inapplicable.
- SoftTalker 2mo agoSafe Harbor should never have been a thing. Newspapers and other publications accepted "user content" without any safe harbor -- and they exercised judgement over what they would publish. If a reader sent in an obscene rant as a letter to the editor, it wouldn't make it any further than the nearest bin. If an online platform can't figure out how to do that, it's really their problem to solve, not one they should just get to shove on society with some lectures about "parenting" or other nonesense.
- juleiie 2mo ago[flagged]
- Levitating 2mo agoMeta could help the situation, for instance by providing fact-checking tools and banning rage-bait creators. Instead they have removed those tools and are paying these creators. So it's not just consumers to blame here.
- juleiie 2mo ago[flagged]
- Levitating 2mo agoBut we don't all use Facebook, Facebook found its niche of tech-illiterate people to abuse. The population is a wide demographic and it would be nice if companies didn't try to exploit parts of it.
- kalaksi 2mo agoI'm not holding my breath for masses to become informed, rational, responsible and balanced overall. And why would the responsibility lie solely on consumers to act perfectly
- pjc50 2mo ago> You can only change your own habits Rather like smoking, I can only change my own habits (have never smoked) but that won't prevent me from being harmed by other people's habits. Even if I don't use Facebook, I can be harmed by Facebook voters.
- phendrenad2 2mo agoPeople want to feel like they're doing something in the "culture war". Rage-bait gives them an outlet. Facebook might be saving us from total civil war here.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2mo agoRage-bait invented the "culture war" you're talking about.
- phendrenad2 2mo agoYou are technically correct, which is the best kind of correct.
- bakugo 2mo agoIronically, this article is rage-bait.
- magic_hamster 2mo agoFirst of all, Facebook is not even the worst offender. That'd have to go to X and TikTok. Rage bait, propaganda, and straight up bad actors with money pushing their agenda. If you got angry because of a TikTok video, you are being exploited. Some of these actors also put a lot of money into campuses in the west, so when you're done watching some terrible propaganda, you can join a local club and find your way to more people getting angry at misinformation. This is how we get stuff like "globalize intifada" and students "occupying" buildings. I wish this was just hyperbole, but really, go check for yourself what kind of money state actors put into schools and universities in the west, and why.
- leonidasrup 2mo agoThis is how we also get stuff like Haitian immigrants were stealing and eating pets in Springfield, Ohio. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Springfield_pet-eating_hoax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Springfield_pet-eating_hoax
- thih9 2mo agoThe companies clearly won’t listen to reason, not as long as this strategy works. Voting seems to work, either with actual votes, or wallet, or attention.
- patchtopic 2mo ago[flagged]
- inigyou 2mo ago[flagged]
- wpietri 2mo ago> "it is not Meta's role to police offensiveness" Just to fund, transmit, amplify, protect, and profit from it.
- mc32 2mo agoThe egregious part is the amplification part. Profit derives from that. Transmission and protection are neutral and they are necessary for all information especially if there is a history of freedom of expression; though of course some governments and others like regulating permissible expression.
- thisislife2 2mo agoDon't forget the politics too behind it: - Facebook and Genocide: How Facebook contributed to genocide in Myanmar and why it will not be held accountable - https://systemicjustice.org/article/facebook-and-genocide-how-facebook-contributed-to-genocide-in-myanmar-and-why-it-will-not-be-held-accountable/ https://systemicjustice.org/article/facebook-and-genocide-ho... - UN: Facebook had a ‘role’ in Rohingya genocide - https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/3/13/un-facebook-had-a-role-in-rohingya-genocide https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/3/13/un-facebook-had-a-r... - Rohingya refugees sue Facebook over genocide - https://www.dw.com/en/rohingya-refugees-file-lawsuit-against-facebook-over-genocide/a-60038553 https://www.dw.com/en/rohingya-refugees-file-lawsuit-against...
- basilgohar 2mo agoAnd Gaza: - https://www.thecanary.co/global/world-analysis/2024/12/20/facebook-meta-censoring-palestine/ https://www.thecanary.co/global/world-analysis/2024/12/20/fa... - https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20240921-big-techs-complicity-in-genocide-the-unforgivable-silence-of-online-platforms/ https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20240921-big-techs-complic... - https://progressive.international/wire/2025-08-26-un-calls-out-google-and-amazon-for-abetting-gaza-genocide/en/ https://progressive.international/wire/2025-08-26-un-calls-o...
- gagan2020 2mo ago
- archerx 2mo agoMaybe they should pay their programmers to fix the audio bug in their iOS app. I can't listen to my podcasts and use the facebook app at the same time because it wants to mute the podcast to play nothing, even with the phone on silent and autoplay disabled the facebook app just randomly mutes my podcasts for no reason making me not want to use the app.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2mo agoThis is a really funny way to describe Facebook's (and Youtube's, and TikTok's, and...) entire business model. It's long been known that they aggressively promote ahem "engaging" content. How do they incentivize people to make it? Ad revenue!
- mattlondon 2mo agoI think this is a bit misleading. It sounds to me like the creators are creating and uploading the content, and then that is getting monetised on the platform? The title makes it sound like meta is commissioning the content? I don't think that is the case here? Or is it? Directly commissioning someone to create it is pretty wild.
- jeremyjh 2mo agoYes, it says in the article that they are being paid through Meta’s content monetization program. The title is a bit of bait but it’s simply true that rage sells eyeballs so Meta does create an incentive for people to create awful content of many different types.
- iamnothere 2mo agoIt sounds like the Twitter/X creator system that was recently curtailed when it didn’t have the expected results. I’m sure the same will happen to Meta’s system, if you pay for raw engagement then you tend to get trash. Ironically, the article is itself ragebait! But that’s the media as a whole (including Meta).
- mikeocool 2mo ago> appear to be profiting from is "an invitation-only programme that lets you earn money from the performance of your eligible public reels, photos, stories and text posts." The difference between “We ask white nationalists to join our invite only pay-for-views program” and “we commission white nationalists to make content” kinda seems like splitting hairs.
- lazide 2mo agoIt’s the new smoking. It’s currently at the stage they profess ignorance while being lambasted with all the videos of them clearly knowing what was going on and lying to congress about it. I give it a couple years before the PSA about ‘your brain on social media’ or whatever.
- 2mo ago
- falsemyrmidon 2mo agoI don't know anyone who uses Facebook anymore
- Razengan 2mo agoWhy do the richest and most powerful humans, who have seen all of the world and its wonders, and can go anywhere anytime, and get all the luxuries our civilization has to offer, and never have to struggle for anything in their lives.. want to make it worse?
- carefulfungi 2mo agoBecause, often, that's how they became the richest, most powerful humans. If your goal is to have money and power, and you have more today than yesterday, the world for you didn't get worse.
- Razengan 2mo agoAfter a point what difference does it make? When you literally have a billion dollars what difference does 1 million more make?
- baggachipz 2mo agoJust your common dick-measuring contest at a different echelon. When all people are NPCs to be exploited, getting the highest score is the goal.
- Razengan 2mo agoReminds me of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtV33YSKOJk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtV33YSKOJk "Mega-billionaire can't relate to his millionaire friends" - Wizards with Guns
- koe123 2mo agoEvery single time historically we have unregulated media you get a shitshow. I think you can blame our societies nonchalant lassez faire attitude to the propaganda profiteering by American big tech for lots of the issues we face today. Honestly: do cocaine laced recommender algorithms really benefit us? I really hope the EU fully bans this stuff.
- fsuts 2mo agoBut regulated media is also a shit show!
- beepbooptheory 2mo agoLike what?
- iamnothere 2mo agoPravda is the most famous example UK “D-notices” are another great example And the Sedition Act, as well as the Comstock Act
- doo_daa 2mo agoAren't the UK's D-notices advisory. I thought they could be (and often are) ignored by media outlets. I don't think they warrant a mention alongside Pravda.
- iamnothere 2mo agoTrue, I suppose UK “super injunctions” would be more apt, although the D-notice system has been used multiple times to successfully prevent information from reaching the public.
- fsuts 2mo agoTake a juicy corruption story to the media and watch them refuse to engage. All of them. There are things they are allowed to talk about, and things they are not. It’s been refined over many decades to maintain public ignorance That Epstein or Enron type scandal you see in the media is tip of iceberg of what is not published.
- christkv 2mo agoI have a very mixed friend group from hard left and hard right and they all get their own little bubble of rage bait that amplifies their own beliefs. Since i have them in my feed I get this crap from both side in my feed thanks to the algorithms. So i barely touch the site anymore
- rubyfan 2mo agoWhy anyone still engages with these platforms is totally beyond me. They are bad for your soul, bad for the nation, bad for the world.
- unglaublich 2mo agoIt's an addiction. These platforms have been engineers to be addictive, and now people are hooked.
- smrtinsert 2mo agoBecause they influence a lot of opinions which influences decisions which ends up influencing all our lives. Back around 2016 bots were loose on ut internet, with everyone freely gobbling up misinformation. Now there is an unofficial army of people determined to keep facts up at the forefront as well as other malicious social media negative trends at bay.
- inigyou 2mo agoAs well as several official armies determined to keep disinformation at the forefront while keeping facts at bay.
- throwyonion 2mo ago[dead]
- exhumet 2mo agoi recently downloaded it again after nearly a decade to use marketplace to buy a bike for my wife. Got the bike and deleted the app. but my god opening it up was hell. the interface on mobile is just....stressful. super cluttered, shit all over the place with notifications and things to see. first post i saw on there was someone i used to be friends with but havent thought about in years just blatently reposting ACTUAL racist shit... bought a bike in one day and deleted the app once again. horrible experience aside from the nice old dude who sold me the bike lol
- 2mo ago
- raincole 2mo agoNewspapers and also pay people to produce rage-bait content.
- aBskH123 2mo agoIt is not only rage bait. They like the new corporate fascism and that its followers believe that the right wing will fix the economy. Maybe they have some romantic ideals about the 1930s, where Schacht fixed the economy for Hitler with a form of quantitative easing. But that scheme became unsustainable around 1938. The difference is that back then the powerful needed people. The current Silicon Valley "elites" want to get rid of everyone, make them dumb and replace them with AI. The sooner the right wing audience realizes this, the better.
- cindyllm 2mo ago[dead]
- bdangubic 2mo agoIf we were normal society company like Meta would be shut down and its CEO would be in Hague and prosecuted for crimes against humanity
- lesostep 2mo agoIf we were normal society companies like Meta would be shut down before their CEO could commit crimes against humanities
- bdangubic 2mo agowhen facebook started out and was actual social network, for a short period of time it was arguably a net-positive for the society though…
- bdangubic 2mo agovery few things bring me more joy than seeing downvotes from Meta bot accounts :)
- elmer2 2mo ago[flagged]
- datakan 2mo agoBecause the article itself is ragebait
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- throww2q79ww 2mo agoSocial network is a cancer. I don't even talk to people who use these networks.
- pbiggar 2mo agoSimilarly, Meta is paying violent illegal israeli settlers, who commit attrocities against Palestinians in the West Bank in order to steal their land. Same mechanism. https://www.facebook.com/jewishvoiceforpeace/posts/meta-doesnt-just-permit-settler-and-extremist-israeli-pages-to-publish-violent-r/1421321073371388/ https://www.facebook.com/jewishvoiceforpeace/posts/meta-does...
- iamnothere 2mo agoThis is a tired rehash of the same panic we had after 2016. In short: “Oh no, if we allow unrestricted communications, people may turn this into political advantage!” No shit. That’s the point of free speech. As always, the only solution is twofold: (1) end the targeted advertising business model (for everyone, not just Meta) and (2) acknowledge and address the underlying social and economic problems affecting average people. But of course the establishment has no interest in pursuing either one of these. And so popular anger will continue to build. I’m sure that shutting down the few release valves for that anger is a great solution.
- phatfish 2mo agoIt's not a release valve, it's a honeypot so the 99% keep blaming each other. Shut it down and something might actually happen in the real world.
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- wookmaster 2mo agoI'm not surprised, I quit because I kept getting pushed this content for a long while and suspected as much. Same is happening on nextdoor for sure, whenever I login there's some pushed post that creates a bunch of engagement of someone stating something very political and controversial. It almost feels funny how bluesky and other platforms lack this sorta rage bait being prioritized. Facebook and friends sold us out hard and made society suffer. Stop using their services.
- ChrisMarshallNY 2mo agoI stopped logging into Faecebook, years ago, because it marked most of my posts as spam (I tended to post "look at my latest" stuff, there, so I understand why; but it rendered the platform worthless, for me). However, I'll lay odds that if I had posted that Hitler was just a misunderstood genius, my posts would have gone viral throughout the system.
- superxpro12 2mo agoFacebook figured out a long time ago that "ragebait" and profit are transitively connected via "engagement". They recognized that anger, hate, fear, and all negative emotions can ALSO bring in a LOT of clicks.
- throwaway27448 2mo agoThis is true of every social media that operates around engagement. Reddit, twitter, tiktok, etc. the model failed in every way except for making money. Hell, it's true of hacker news sometimes!
- eclips0 2mo ago[flagged]
- watwut 2mo agoWhich part was wrong? That meta is not paying settlers? Or that the whole point of setter policy is to take the land and the method is to enable settlers to mistreat original population as much as possible?
- binary132 2mo agoMy ragebait good. Your ragebait bad.
- hugodan 2mo agoClick on it, read the image title, that's all you need to know and the correct title here.
- cdrnsf 2mo agoMeta and its products are a cancer.
- khernandezrt 2mo agoJust to add onto this; Instagram purposely floats controversial comments to the top of a comment section for "engagement" purposes. I've seen this many times.
- AlexandrB 2mo agoI've noticed that when my partner and I look at the same Instagram post (within a few minutes of each other), we get completely different "top" comments. I suspect Instagram is ordering the comments individually for each user to maximize engagement. All social media is drifting towards being a mirror that reflects your worst tendencies back at you. No content restrictions will fix this - the whole personalized approach to media is fundamentally rotten.
- mkbkn 2mo agoEntire public Meta suite of products are cancer to the society.
- somelamer567 2mo agoMeta have long profited from knowingly aiding and abetting the enemies of the West by undermining our societies from within. Meta are the greatest force against freedom in the world today, apart from Putin's post-fascist power vertical and the Chinese Communist Party. What I think of Mark Zuckerberg unfortunately cannot be printed, because unlike Meta platforms, HN has standards.
- truckyday 2mo ago[dead]
- Barbing 2mo agoRecent Guardian article: “Inside a meme factory: meet one of thousands of Indonesians trading political outrage clicks for Facebook cash“ https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49237298 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49237298
- ravivooda 2mo agoEvery other day, my feed seems to be filled with pro-Republican posts, followed by pro-Democratic posts the next. It’s fascinating how the model decided this was the kind of content worth generating.
- 01100011 2mo agoTo some degree I think social media algorithms already altered our behavior enough that extreme and controversial content generation would continue even if we disabled the algorithms. They've reinforced the memes enough now that they are self-sustaining.
- mrguyorama 2mo ago"The Model" didn't decide anything. Facebook and these other attention economy companies have been A/B testing for two decades now, and there have been multiple "Metas" they have found. They have all converged eventually on ragebait being an extremely effective engagement driver. They didn't just run a linear regression or whatever on some data and magically get the most rage inducing system. They made conscious decisions at nearly every step to make changes to optimize for "Engagement", which at this point is a code word that means "Controversial" the same way that a video of someone eating a toddler would be "Controversial" It's digital crack pointed at a subsection of our brain that evolved to do group signalling.
- throwfaraway135 2mo agoThere is no solution based on censorship that doesn't undermine democracy. If you want Facebook to censor people/content/ideas that you don't like it is going also to censor vital information needed for a democracy to work. The best solution for now seams to be what twitter is doing with community notes.
- zigman1 2mo agoYou don't have to censor, but you don't have to pay either
- throwfaraway135 2mo agoNot paying is a form of censorship.
- classified 2mo agoProbably training the rage-bait edition of their AI so they can generate future "content" themselves.
- tomaytotomato 2mo agoI would drop Facebook in a heartbeat but Facebook Marketplace is a strong pull for getting bargains in my local area. I have alternatives like eBay and Gumtree but they have their own shortcomings. Examples from Facebook: - Antique lumber planks 50p a plank - 4 sticks of DDR4 16GB SODIMMs, £60 - Garden tools, £10 This stuff would be slower and more expensive on eBay, and Gumtree is more of a waiting game as its userbase has definitely shrunk.
- eagerpace 2mo agoI have a dedicated profile for marketplace. I managed to keep it separate from my real meta account for a long time but they eventually tricked me into linking it. We need a Wikipedia model online marketplace. Craigslist was close, but didn’t keep up.
- haunter 2mo agoFor some reason I always get insane deals locally on Marketplace. Bought a brand new 3DS with 4 games this weekend 5 kms away from me for ~50€. People would sell this for 200€ on eBay.
- diogenescynic 2mo agoWe've become a provocateur type of society... Lady Gaga, Kanye West, Kim Kardashian, Mr. Beast, Jake/Logan Paul... it's all the same thing at the end of the day. They harvest attention and in return funnel their audience towards ads, merch, OnlyFans, etc.
- eclips0 2mo ago[flagged]
- 8note 2mo agoI count as a settler sure, but unlike the colloquial israeli settlers, Im not engaging in acts of terrorism. not all israeli settlers are terrorists of course, but unlike me, who's living on the land by treaty, theyre living on land obtained through terrorism and war crimes. not all settlers are equivalent
- giwook 2mo agoI hate that I've become jaded enough to say this, but what else is new?
- xhkkffbf 2mo agoJust to be clear, I was not enraged by this headline when I desperately clicked on it as fast as I could. It was out of pure scholarly interest.
- PowerElectronix 2mo agoMisleading headline, nontheless it paints a bleak picture for facebook's revenue if they need to resort to these practices.
- game_the0ry 2mo agoIts time to boycott all meta products. Delete whatsapp, insta, facebook.
- Bleaphar 2mo agoThis sucks, I feel like most people are so done with rage bait content but it's what the platforms have proven makes the most money. At this point it would take a new platform with a different paradigm to get people to stop but also no one wants a new app to keep track of.
- manoDev 2mo agoSocial media is weaponised thought control. The new generation is being forced out of viable useful jobs to turn into so called “content creators”. Don’t participate in it, and delete it from kids and parents devices if possible.
- eclips0 2mo ago[flagged]
- cindyllm 2mo ago[dead]
- chris_explicare 2mo ago[flagged]
- AudreyWilson289 2mo ago[dead]