Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Facebook’s 2016 Election Team Gave Advertisers a Blueprint to a Divided US

buzzfeed.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 44 posts

Re: Facebook’s 2016 Election Team Gave Advertisers a Blueprint to a Divided US

#31

Post by thisacctforreal »

laretluval wrote: post #12
jparse wrote: post #4

All in all, this is why there is no dislike button. The entire Facebook system incentivizes division because division creates revenue. It's a perpetual loop. Let's walk through how it works: Step 1) A person posts, or shares, something incredibly divisive. Note: There is no feedback button to let the poster know the content is hateful and that broader society disapproves of it. There is also no consequence to posting…

You think a dislike button would disincentivize division? Seems like it would make group boundaries stronger since people would dislike anything they disagree with.

But in that case they’d at least be interacting with the other side, potentially curbing some of the most radical views.

Re: Facebook’s 2016 Election Team Gave Advertisers a Blueprint to a Divided US

#32

Post by jparse »

intended wrote: post #30
jparse wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reddit is a different beast. It is confined to a sub-reddit and the people who judge it are the people who are part of that sub-reddit. Mods included. Also, reddit doesn't spread the content if there is any uptick. It is all pretty confined. Facebook does the exact reverse. It goes out of its way to spread the content that is driving engagement.

The thesis holds that a dislike button’s absence emboldens negative behavior. This is not true, because if so Reddit’s and their subreddits would have a very different history. And as another user pointed out, the research shows that a dislike button actually creates MORE engagement and content, not less. My point is that this is the human mind on the internet; most human beings have no clue about how they work, what…

Referencing one research article isn't proof. There are several others that argue otherwise.[1] On Reddit, a dislike button isn't meaningless. If your post and comment karma go down endlessly, you start to lose privileges. So it really does encourage behavior that is acceptable in the context of the subreddit. The research paper, for example, talks more about rating scales in context.

As I have mentioned, Facebook's problem is that a) There is endless spread for bad content, like fake news. b) There is no way to have the crowd give definitive negative feedback to the user where not only is a dislike recorded, but the impact of the dislike is weighted based on the standing of the user giving it. c) and even if there was, there is no way to degrade privileges.

[1] http://www.rangevoting.org/sen-recsys2011.pdf

Re: Facebook’s 2016 Election Team Gave Advertisers a Blueprint to a Divided US

#33

Post by sudojudo »

inopinatus wrote: post #26
sudojudo wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yikes, one of those categories is not like the others. Seeing that you're an Aussie, you might not be aware, but folks in the US will instantly spot a nasty racial slur in your list. Because your personal and professional info is associated with this account, you should probably edit the end off the bible-slinging line. As a favor to you, I'm going to flag the comment.

Upvoted - not because I agree (I would never knowingly misquote a novel) - but because you're being downvoted and I'll defend your right to point out how horrible it is. And it is horrible. Interface is a satire on the political process, and portrays data-driven political operatives as the most contemptible and cynical manipulators. The casual prejudice of pigeonholing everyone does them (and their real-world counter…

My VPS, in Iceland, had a racist hostname on one of their servers; they had no idea and were quite embarrassed. Just wanted to be sure you weren't in the same boat, because the slur isn't exactly obvious.

Apologies for wrongfully flagging your comment. I wanted to hide it, in case you didn't know the context and were signed out for the day. I'm with you 100% on whitewashing and censorship, even though that seems to be exactly what I was doing.

Cheers for the friendly response. I'm going to have to check out that book.

Re: Facebook’s 2016 Election Team Gave Advertisers a Blueprint to a Divided US

#34

Post by lostboys67 »

Jun8 wrote: post #3

Here's a WaPo summary on the legality of "the Russians" buying Facebook ads: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/09... . Basically, it all hinges on if the ads mention a candidate (illegal) or were worded in a vague manner (gray zone).

Maybe all political advertising needs to have a named publisher like in the UK get caught promoting a candidate without stating the publisher and their election agent will get you in the election court.

Re: Facebook’s 2016 Election Team Gave Advertisers a Blueprint to a Divided US

#35

Post by lostboys67 »

thisisit wrote: post #13

I remember reading about Obama's election and the use of "big data" and "data science" to target voters: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/509026/how-obamas-team-us... The social media companies picked on that and ran with it. So, while Facebook is not exactly the paragon of ethical behavior, this is just fodder for click bait. If the same targeting had worked in someone's favor the article would have been "gave adv…

I went to a talk by blue state and the main use of big data was identifying local affinity groups who could then go out and do traditional electoral work.

Re: Facebook’s 2016 Election Team Gave Advertisers a Blueprint to a Divided US

#36

Post by sudojudo »

jskopek wrote: post #22
sudojudo wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yikes, one of those categories is not like the others. Seeing that you're an Aussie, you might not be aware, but folks in the US will instantly spot a nasty racial slur in your list. Because your personal and professional info is associated with this account, you should probably edit the end off the bible-slinging line. As a favor to you, I'm going to flag the comment.

Wise of you to bring that up, but I feel you might be overplaying the slight. It's a direct quote from a book, so I'd be more angry at the author in this case. Still, good thing to point out.

Thanks. You're correct and I overplayed it. It's clear that he's quoting the author, but racial tensions and identity politics have me running in paranoid mode these days.

Forgot that this is Hacker News and not Tumblr; I don't even know where they keep the pitchforks and torches around here.

Re: Facebook’s 2016 Election Team Gave Advertisers a Blueprint to a Divided US

#37

Post by pjc50 »

The implication of this is that the real "filter bubble" is not the one people choose by their free association with other people, but the filters applied by the platform for advertising purposes. Your neighbours are reacting to ads, news and clickbait that you've never even seen and may not have the opportunity to see.

Re: Facebook’s 2016 Election Team Gave Advertisers a Blueprint to a Divided US

#38

Post by pjc50 »

indubitable wrote: post #19
didibus wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its a good hypothesis. I think there's more psychology at play then just this though. In a way, Facebook helps minorities find each other, and then isolate themselves virtually to be "just amongst them". Possibly its the no consequence framework that has given them the courage to continue to pursue finding others of similar values. As they grow though, and realize they are not alone, the isolated group can now open i…

I think there is a bigger danger in this sort of isolationism (quite the euphemism!) than just vicious values being allowed to coalesce. The isolationism results in individuals' values not being challenged, which can push them further and further away from reality. Let's create an imaginary example. We're trying to solve a math problem. The correct answer to this problem is 0. However, one side believes the answer is…

> But as they remained with arm's reach of each side, radicalism never took that much of a hold. Granted, we did have a sitting vice president kill the first secretary of the treasury in a duel.

I think this is a rather rose-tinted view on the amount of corruption and discord that has prevailed in the US, such as the Harding administration.

It also rather depends on your definition of "radicalism". Is white supremacy radical or mainstream? Does that change over time? Does that make it right?

Post reply on HN