25 ms·

I 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?

I 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 ago
Yes, 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 ago
  It 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 ago
  It’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.
- jklinger410 2mo ago
  The invitation is automated
  - Starman_Jones 2mo ago
    Did Meta set up the selection criteria for the automated selection system?
    - jklinger410 2mo ago
      The criteria does not make value judgements about the content of the creator. Unless they are banned or suspended by the entire platform.
  - mikeocool 2mo ago
    Oh, that’s good, because if you automate something then you’re automatically absolved from all responsibility for its actions. And you certainly shouldn’t bother monitoring what it’s doing.
    - jklinger410 2mo ago
      If you want to write misleading articles to get clicks, it makes it a lot more interesting if it sounds like there's a lot of intentionality behind what META is doing. In reality META has simply not banned or restricted these accounts from monetization. That's it! But that doesn't make for an exciting headline.
      - WorldMaker 2mo ago
        That's assuming inaction doesn't have intentionality behind it. Meta has proven many times that its inaction is often intentional. But also, maybe more importantly, as soon as money changing hands is involved, that's a business transaction and if you aren't watching like a hawk who your business transacts with, then yes that is often assumed intentional (and classically a sign of a bad business) because it shows up in your accounts and impacts your bottom line.
      - deleted 2mo ago
- consensus1 2mo ago
  No, it's "We invite popular content creators without regard to their political views."
  - datsci_est_2015 2mo ago
    The fact that antisocial (e.g. white nationalist) content creators are the most “popular” (e.g. drive the most engagement) is not immaterial to this topic. It’s a very flimsy defense. “It’s not my fault that the cartels pay the most for heavy weaponry.”
- baublet 2mo ago
  That bit of legalese is really important: it obscures intention, and adds layers of deniability to the rich and powerful putting their thumb on the scale. “I guess the socialists and egalitarians just lost in the totally free and fair marketplace of ideas! :shrug:”
aragilar 2mo ago
I think it depends on whether what Meta states about the "Content Monetization" program being invite only is true? If it is, that's effectively commissioning, if it's not, well Meta is lying and then the question is why lie?
NoLinkToMe 2mo ago
This is correct, it's monetisation, not commissioning. Facebook isn't paying to produce. It's paying for driving views and clicks on ads, regardless of how. It's like if I hire a taxi driver to come to my house and drive me to the airport, and the taxi driver happens to run over a person in the process. It would be ridiculous to write 'he hired a driver to run over a person with a car'. However, this also doesn't fully capture the reality of what is happening. Let's say I routinely get a taxi, and taxi drivers routinely hit people because I happen to have a policy where I only pay them a large sum if they get to the airport impossibly fast, and the fastest way is to drive dangerously. Suppose I notice that every time I get a taxi, someone is run over because of my payment incentives. Suppose I then write a statement that says I will not pay the taxi if they hit a person. Suppose it keeps happening anyway, and I keep paying anyway. And suppose I benefit directly from this financially, because getting to the airport faster saves me money in missed flights. Suppose I then do this on a worldwide scale involving many millions of people and create a market around this of tens of billions of dollars, suppose it's having a significant effect on public health and safety worldwide? I think it's fair to then use more explicit language to hold me to account. I am financing death and destruction after all, even if technically I'm 'just getting a cab'.
- artur_makly 2mo ago
  Thank you for this poignant allegory - its so spot on - it will really open some people's minds here who are overthinking and rationalizing their current Big Corp employments.
  - econ 2mo ago
    They put you in several opposing camps. They identify the most insane content and show only that to everyone in the opposing camp. No one cares if you clean up after your dog makes a nr 2. The anti dog poop people want to hear you don't give a fk and let Herman poop wherever he likes. Similarly the dog owners don't want to hear you understand. They want you to talk about little poopers getting stuck in your barbed wire with razorblades.
- directevolve 2mo ago
lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2mo ago
First, pay people for the "engagement" their content generates, then aggressively promote the most "engaging" content. At the same time, such content is known to have certain characteristics. This is the Facebook (et al.) commissioning model.
Tangurena2 2mo ago
Twitter/X has actually paying some of those creators. They're changing that program in September. https://www.forbes.com/sites/antoniopequenoiv/2023/07/13/twitter-starts-paying-creators-tens-of-thousands---amid-intensifying-competition-with-threads/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/antoniopequenoiv/2023/07/13/twi...
nkrisc 2mo ago
They are creating an environment where they incentivize it and profit from it. Whether or not that’s meaningfully different from directly commissioning it themselves seems like a minor quibble to me. It’s no different than a mob boss suggesting a rival should take a long walk off a short pier.
jklinger410 2mo ago
They wrote that title specifically to mislead people.
deleted 2mo ago
[deleted]
mrguyorama 2mo ago
No, Meta intentionally set up the incentive structure to reward rage bait content. You should expect they knew what they were going to get from doing that. You don't get to be Meta's size and have Meta's experience with systems engineering and research on their own platform's incentives and outcomes, and not know exactly how this will go.
- consensus1 2mo ago
  So does ABC, which is why we are all commenting on their article here.
consensus1 2mo ago
Yes. This article is just rage bait designed to rile up the type of people that want the government to restrict freedom of speech on social media.
datsci_est_2015 2mo ago
“Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?” — “I didn’t directly tell them to make white nationalist content, I just paid them for being an engaging content creator.” — Hope that we get to a point as a society that we acknowledge that companies can and should be held liable for inevitable second-order effects of the decisions they make and strategies they adopt. It certainly applies to personal liability, e.g. manslaughter.
- slopinthebag 2mo ago
  Would this mean holding the content creators liable for their speech? You’d need to abolish the first amendment to do this.
  - datsci_est_2015 2mo ago
    No, but to roll with my comparison for humor’s sake, writing an email to hire a hitman to kill someone for you isn’t protected under the first amendment either.
Joeboy 2mo ago
Headline has now been updated to be less misleading / more boring (rendering prior conversation confusing to newcomers).
8note 2mo ago
I think building an algorithm that prioritizes controversial content, and then paying the makers of the content is equivalent to commissioning the work. they have a system where they accept all content, but pay double(or whatever extra the algorithm prioritization creates) for controversial content
JKCalhoun 2mo ago
A distinction without a difference?

jeremyjh 2mo ago

Yes, 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 ago
It 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 ago
It’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.
jklinger410 2mo ago
The invitation is automated
- Starman_Jones 2mo ago
  Did Meta set up the selection criteria for the automated selection system?
  - jklinger410 2mo ago
    The criteria does not make value judgements about the content of the creator. Unless they are banned or suspended by the entire platform.
- mikeocool 2mo ago
  Oh, that’s good, because if you automate something then you’re automatically absolved from all responsibility for its actions. And you certainly shouldn’t bother monitoring what it’s doing.
  - jklinger410 2mo ago
    If you want to write misleading articles to get clicks, it makes it a lot more interesting if it sounds like there's a lot of intentionality behind what META is doing. In reality META has simply not banned or restricted these accounts from monetization. That's it! But that doesn't make for an exciting headline.
    - WorldMaker 2mo ago
      That's assuming inaction doesn't have intentionality behind it. Meta has proven many times that its inaction is often intentional. But also, maybe more importantly, as soon as money changing hands is involved, that's a business transaction and if you aren't watching like a hawk who your business transacts with, then yes that is often assumed intentional (and classically a sign of a bad business) because it shows up in your accounts and impacts your bottom line.
    - deleted 2mo ago
consensus1 2mo ago
No, it's "We invite popular content creators without regard to their political views."
- datsci_est_2015 2mo ago
  The fact that antisocial (e.g. white nationalist) content creators are the most “popular” (e.g. drive the most engagement) is not immaterial to this topic. It’s a very flimsy defense. “It’s not my fault that the cartels pay the most for heavy weaponry.”
baublet 2mo ago
That bit of legalese is really important: it obscures intention, and adds layers of deniability to the rich and powerful putting their thumb on the scale. “I guess the socialists and egalitarians just lost in the totally free and fair marketplace of ideas! :shrug:”

aragilar 2mo ago

I think it depends on whether what Meta states about the "Content Monetization" program being invite only is true? If it is, that's effectively commissioning, if it's not, well Meta is lying and then the question is why lie?

NoLinkToMe 2mo ago

This is correct, it's monetisation, not commissioning. Facebook isn't paying to produce. It's paying for driving views and clicks on ads, regardless of how. It's like if I hire a taxi driver to come to my house and drive me to the airport, and the taxi driver happens to run over a person in the process. It would be ridiculous to write 'he hired a driver to run over a person with a car'. However, this also doesn't fully capture the reality of what is happening. Let's say I routinely get a taxi, and taxi drivers routinely hit people because I happen to have a policy where I only pay them a large sum if they get to the airport impossibly fast, and the fastest way is to drive dangerously. Suppose I notice that every time I get a taxi, someone is run over because of my payment incentives. Suppose I then write a statement that says I will not pay the taxi if they hit a person. Suppose it keeps happening anyway, and I keep paying anyway. And suppose I benefit directly from this financially, because getting to the airport faster saves me money in missed flights. Suppose I then do this on a worldwide scale involving many millions of people and create a market around this of tens of billions of dollars, suppose it's having a significant effect on public health and safety worldwide? I think it's fair to then use more explicit language to hold me to account. I am financing death and destruction after all, even if technically I'm 'just getting a cab'.

artur_makly 2mo ago
Thank you for this poignant allegory - its so spot on - it will really open some people's minds here who are overthinking and rationalizing their current Big Corp employments.
- econ 2mo ago
  They put you in several opposing camps. They identify the most insane content and show only that to everyone in the opposing camp. No one cares if you clean up after your dog makes a nr 2. The anti dog poop people want to hear you don't give a fk and let Herman poop wherever he likes. Similarly the dog owners don't want to hear you understand. They want you to talk about little poopers getting stuck in your barbed wire with razorblades.
directevolve 2mo ago

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2mo ago

First, pay people for the "engagement" their content generates, then aggressively promote the most "engaging" content. At the same time, such content is known to have certain characteristics. This is the Facebook (et al.) commissioning model.

Tangurena2 2mo ago

Twitter/X has actually paying some of those creators. They're changing that program in September. https://www.forbes.com/sites/antoniopequenoiv/2023/07/13/twitter-starts-paying-creators-tens-of-thousands---amid-intensifying-competition-with-threads/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/antoniopequenoiv/2023/07/13/twi...

nkrisc 2mo ago

They are creating an environment where they incentivize it and profit from it. Whether or not that’s meaningfully different from directly commissioning it themselves seems like a minor quibble to me. It’s no different than a mob boss suggesting a rival should take a long walk off a short pier.

jklinger410 2mo ago

They wrote that title specifically to mislead people.

deleted 2mo ago

[deleted]

mrguyorama 2mo ago

No, Meta intentionally set up the incentive structure to reward rage bait content. You should expect they knew what they were going to get from doing that. You don't get to be Meta's size and have Meta's experience with systems engineering and research on their own platform's incentives and outcomes, and not know exactly how this will go.

consensus1 2mo ago
So does ABC, which is why we are all commenting on their article here.

consensus1 2mo ago

Yes. This article is just rage bait designed to rile up the type of people that want the government to restrict freedom of speech on social media.

datsci_est_2015 2mo ago

“Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?” — “I didn’t directly tell them to make white nationalist content, I just paid them for being an engaging content creator.” — Hope that we get to a point as a society that we acknowledge that companies can and should be held liable for inevitable second-order effects of the decisions they make and strategies they adopt. It certainly applies to personal liability, e.g. manslaughter.

slopinthebag 2mo ago
Would this mean holding the content creators liable for their speech? You’d need to abolish the first amendment to do this.
- datsci_est_2015 2mo ago
  No, but to roll with my comparison for humor’s sake, writing an email to hire a hitman to kill someone for you isn’t protected under the first amendment either.

Joeboy 2mo ago

Headline has now been updated to be less misleading / more boring (rendering prior conversation confusing to newcomers).

8note 2mo ago

I think building an algorithm that prioritizes controversial content, and then paying the makers of the content is equivalent to commissioning the work. they have a system where they accept all content, but pay double(or whatever extra the algorithm prioritization creates) for controversial content

JKCalhoun 2mo ago

A distinction without a difference?