Live data from Hacker News

Facebook’s Walled Wonderland Is Inherently Incompatible with News

mondaynote.com

91–100 of 244 posts

Re: Facebook’s Walled Wonderland Is Inherently Incompatible with News

#91
post #46
post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ignorance is killing democracy. And that’s not Facebook’s problem. It’s an educational problem. Our education system is failing to instill critical thinking into young people. So they go out in the world and become adults who are easily duped into this idea or that because they lack the skills and the mindset to evaluate opposing viewpoints. Sure the Internet has made things worse, and that’s a bit shocking for those…

> Ignorance is killing democracy. No it is worse. Misinformation is killing democracy. And that's exactly where Facebook is a problem.

Basically you might as well say that's why the internet is a "problem".

Re: Facebook’s Walled Wonderland Is Inherently Incompatible with News

#92
post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One concrete step would be to accept that they easily bring war/peace in any country they are allowed to operate. The moral responsibility of such a huge platform where people interact needs to be very high. Pointing fingers or giving sugar coated answers is not acceptable. Facebook's motto should be changed from 'connecting people' to 'connecting people to show only what they like'. See we both are arguing something…

So the bigger question as far as I've come to think of it: is a for profit company compatible with the role facebook is filling?

While it appears as though your question is framed to get the answer that a non-profit could do Facebook's task better, there are other options. The core question is: is a social network compatible with news? There are other for-profit models that can work. A simple variation is not to use algorithmic presentation of the news feed at all and allow users to select the news they want to see, and to show all the news about the topic in the feed.

This method has its own issues. For example, I run a bunch of of newsfeeds about entrepreneurs, (Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos etc) on LinkedIn and fairly often I get people complaining that they don't want to see negative news about the entrepreneur -- they only want to see positive news. They describe themselves as fans. I tell them that the won't understand the subject if they don't expose themselves to news they don't like.

But think about that on Facebook - this negative news does not get shared, and there's no proper way to say, "this is negative but interesting", the best you've got is the "angry" emoticon. And you only see what Facebook want you to see. They turned off the option to view your feed by most recent items, not because it was difficult to follow, but because it made more money for them.

So there are ways to fix these issues, but the cost is that you lose some readers and you lose some money. But for those who remain the experience is better - they are getting informed, not entertained. In its entire life Facebook has always put greed before user experience, so there's no way any of this will change.

Re: Facebook’s Walled Wonderland Is Inherently Incompatible with News

#93

Facebook censor news! Facebook removes human censors Facebook allow fake news on their platform! One a serious note: Fake news is a different problem to news 'bubbles' designed to create positive emotions. Sure they're closely linked, but you can have either without the other. I read this article and it seems to switch between them both. I appreciate the viewpoint but I found it hard to follow.

I feel like this isn't talked about enough.

Facebook was curating trending topics! It had dealt with fake news! And we complained, and let the floodgates open.

I wonder what fake news traffic looks like when comparing to the date where FB stopped curating.

Re: Facebook’s Walled Wonderland Is Inherently Incompatible with News

#94
post #56
post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They are asserting themselves only as a business and not emotional influencers...The emotional influences that facebook brings in people is very powerful. The same could be said of TV networks, Spotify, Twitter, Google photos. We are the catalyst that turn stories, music, photos into emotional reactions. We control the dials. Facebook makes it incredibly easy to step outside our bubbles. Click the Like button on a…

I've been off of facebook for years now, but I doubt nowadays most people see the "like" buttons as an instrument for teaching the website algorithms to help keep themselves open minded. (Assuming this stratategy indeed works, since it's known this isn't the only variable they consider) And I don't think this isn't the purpose of feed 'customization' either. It's about making money by assuring advertisers that their…

As a relatively heavy FB user, I use the like button as a "I've read this" button for my friend's comments and statuses, and not at all otherwise.

Re: Facebook’s Walled Wonderland Is Inherently Incompatible with News

#95
post #29

The broader point is that this analysis applies not just to Facebook, but Twitter and Reddit as well. Engagement is a revenue driver and veracity isn't. What's worse, the same applies to regular news as well as aggregators. It always has to a certain extent, but improving technology, changing social attitudes and razor-thin margins have weaponised this. But we're not even finished there: the US and the UK are geograp…

> geographically sorting their populations by political affiliation

Gerrymandering doesn't help; but the idea that "all politics is local" is very old, and the reason we have geographical representatives rather than national PR in the first place.

Re: Facebook’s Walled Wonderland Is Inherently Incompatible with News

#96
post #50

> We are not in the business of picking which issues the world should read about. We are in the business of connecting people and ideas — and matching people with the stories they find most meaningful. Our integrity depends on being inclusive of all perspectives and view points, and using ranking to connect people with the stories and sources they find the most meaningful and engaging. Simply incredible. They are ass…

> They are asserting themselves only as a business and not emotional influencers...The emotional influences that facebook brings in people is very powerful. The same could be said of TV networks, Spotify, Twitter, Google photos. We are the catalyst that turn stories, music, photos into emotional reactions. We control the dials. Facebook makes it incredibly easy to step outside our bubbles. Click the Like button on a…

Facebook wants to be a window on the world. But it's delivery is a takeout window that delivers Big Macs and potato chips.

Re: Facebook’s Walled Wonderland Is Inherently Incompatible with News

#97
post #95
post #29

The broader point is that this analysis applies not just to Facebook, but Twitter and Reddit as well. Engagement is a revenue driver and veracity isn't. What's worse, the same applies to regular news as well as aggregators. It always has to a certain extent, but improving technology, changing social attitudes and razor-thin margins have weaponised this. But we're not even finished there: the US and the UK are geograp…

> geographically sorting their populations by political affiliation Gerrymandering doesn't help; but the idea that "all politics is local" is very old, and the reason we have geographical representatives rather than national PR in the first place.

Yes, but it's getting much, much worse. Republicans simply don't want to live in Democrat areas and vice versa. They don't explicitly think that, they just see that certain areas make them feel comfortable and stay there.

It's heading to the point where these groups won't even meet.

Re: Facebook’s Walled Wonderland Is Inherently Incompatible with News

#98

> We are not in the business of picking which issues the world should read about. We are in the business of connecting people and ideas — and matching people with the stories they find most meaningful. Our integrity depends on being inclusive of all perspectives and view points, and using ranking to connect people with the stories and sources they find the most meaningful and engaging. Simply incredible. They are ass…

>> "Facebook simply kills democracy for their own benefit." No, people and politicians are killing democracy. People choose to get their news from unreliable sources. They act like they care about an issue yet only know the headline. But they can sign an online petition and post it on social media so they look and feel good. Politicians can openly lie on the largest of stages. When called out on it (which rarely happ…

How can you tell one reputable source from others? Better: how can you tell when one reputable source has a hidden agenda to slight push one way or the other without people noticing?

Re: Facebook’s Walled Wonderland Is Inherently Incompatible with News

#99
post #55
post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They sell ads. If "news filtering" aligns with their bottom-line they'll do it, if it doesn't, they won't, that's business. Yep, that's what is said when saying "Facebook [...] kills democracy for their own benefit". They provide a discourse perceived as the public discourse for a profit. Some people are considering that this exercise is a threat to democracy, and even though you seem to imply that you are more ver…

> So, people can perfectly continue to blame Facebook for these problem It's just scapegoating. It's useless and a waste of time. The time you spend blaming Facebook is the time you don't spend actually fixing what should be fixed : creating an healthy environment for debate. Blaming this or that website is easy and it doesn't solve anything. Quitting the extremist views, quitting calling people morons,trolls,doucheb…

On the contrary, I think it is crucial for us to fight against websites selling audiences.

Fake news exists because they are able to sell ads on their pages, and they are profitable because they attract people, creating feelings, outrage, unreasonable reactions that feeds the pre-existing bias in the whole population.

Fighting these should be cutting their revenue streams. Google did just that, but it is a survival move so as to avoid precisely being in the blast of defense move that ought to be taken by citizens.

However, Google can and will only do the bare minimum for them to show that they somewhat care and that they are in control. They are starting a play of cat and mouse with people that can easily switch platforms.

> It's useless and a waste of time.

Ad-blockers are pretty effective there. If everyone used ad-blockers, fake news website would not have any revenue left, beside some marginal subscription streams. Evangelizing for ad-blockers, against Facebook, against Google and against analytics in general is an effective way to fight against these parasites.

> The time you spend blaming Facebook is the time you don't spend actually fixing what should be fixed : creating an healthy environment for debate.

The time I spend blaming all social networks is a time spent to better the Internet and fight against populisms at large. As for how to foster a healthy environment for debate, I'd quote Sartre:

> Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert.

Replace anti-Semites, which were the populists of the pre-45 era, to whichever populism you want today, be it from the left or from the right. You cannot win with reason against them, because they speak to the guts and then explain that since they have popular support, they have already won. You cannot defend measure and reason because their main weapon is bipartism coloring things in black and white, and this will always be more popular than trying to explain things, to have some critical thinking.

Mass-media in general will always push forward this kind of gregarian thinking. Internet ought to be a way for us to build other ways to consume and produce, to share information. Facebook and Google and Amazon are building empires upon the ashes of the old world, effectively cutting the disruptive factor that Internet was introducing in its infancy. Fighting those mastodons is not vain, it is time spent actually fixing what should be fixed.

Re: Facebook’s Walled Wonderland Is Inherently Incompatible with News

#100
post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They are asserting themselves only as a business and not emotional influencers...The emotional influences that facebook brings in people is very powerful. The same could be said of TV networks, Spotify, Twitter, Google photos. We are the catalyst that turn stories, music, photos into emotional reactions. We control the dials. Facebook makes it incredibly easy to step outside our bubbles. Click the Like button on a…

> My online shopping recommends groceries for me based on my past purchases. If I was to contract scurvy because it keeps recommending donuts instead of orange juice who is ultimately responsible? If your online shopping kept erroneously labelling the donuts as 'low fat and sugar and high in vitamin C' who would be responsible?

Yes, in that case I have been deceived. The equivalent of this concept of 'fake news'.

That raises more questions still:

- were those donuts in the health aisle or the bakery?

- was I able to easily test the vitamin C content by comparing with other products?

- why was I trusting this unknown brand of malformed donuts with cheap packaging and flavors like 'purple' for my source of nutrients?

Or is the truth that I just wanted to eat donuts and so sought out the brand that made me feel good about doing so?

Post reply on HN