Fox News dominates ratings on TV so its not surprising they'd be #1 - there's also the fact this is "engagements" and not click-throughs. I'd wager good 15% of these are probably people clicking "Angry" not actually engaging. If you look at "content with the most shares" not surprisingly Reuters and Patch tops the list. OP's headline presumes any algorithm should achieve left/right balance - this is just impossible.…
Facebook’s algorithm change has spurred an angry, Fox News-dominated News Feed
31–40 of 142 posts
Re: Facebook’s algorithm change has spurred an angry, Fox News-dominated News Feed
#32This is kind of sad, that angry is the top emotion. If FB was really optimizing for time well spent, you'd think the ranking system would be able to pick up on content or sources that predictably generate angry reactions.
Re: Facebook’s algorithm change has spurred an angry, Fox News-dominated News Feed
#33Fox News dominates ratings on TV so its not surprising they'd be #1 - there's also the fact this is "engagements" and not click-throughs. I'd wager good 15% of these are probably people clicking "Angry" not actually engaging. If you look at "content with the most shares" not surprisingly Reuters and Patch tops the list. OP's headline presumes any algorithm should achieve left/right balance - this is just impossible.…
I understand the economics of course but it seems obvious to me that if real newspapers charge then propaganda and anger porn will rule discourse. If you want some more on the list for balance there are plenty of left wing Breitbarts you could add. Those are free too. BTW I think fear porn / anger porn is an appropriate term. It releases brain chemicals that can be addictive just like sex porn. This explains some of…
Its not because of a FB algorithm - that's for certain.
I can ask everyone in my family if they've heard of Breitbart and 99% will say yes. If I ask if they've heard of Rachael Maddow.. maybe 40%? This is despite both of them engaging heavily in anger porn
Re: Facebook’s algorithm change has spurred an angry, Fox News-dominated News Feed
#34> the “angry” reaction dominates many pages, with “Fox News driving the most angry reactions of anyone, with nearly double that of anyone else.” So does this mean that Fox News is dominating the news feed because of liberal people hating on it, or is it because of articles that Fox News writes that riles up their base?
I think it's healthier to avoid dividing everybody into two categories, and interpreting everything with respect to those. But to answer your question within your own worldview, it's both.
Re: Facebook’s algorithm change has spurred an angry, Fox News-dominated News Feed
#35Long time ago, my facebook newsfeed was full of my friends' sharing, it's been very useful place for us to keep friends update. But now, it's a different place. It's a place for ads, for livestream, for real "social" stuffs, but most of them is useless to me for what i use facebook for.
I’ve noticed more people engaged with LinkedIn over the last year. People are sharing things I once saw on Facebook years ago: personal achievements and struggles, side hobbies, congratulations, etc. Surprisingly, I’ve found myself considering engaging with content on LinkedIn a few times the last few months.
Re: Facebook’s algorithm change has spurred an angry, Fox News-dominated News Feed
#36Fox News dominates ratings on TV so its not surprising they'd be #1 - there's also the fact this is "engagements" and not click-throughs. I'd wager good 15% of these are probably people clicking "Angry" not actually engaging. If you look at "content with the most shares" not surprisingly Reuters and Patch tops the list. OP's headline presumes any algorithm should achieve left/right balance - this is just impossible.…
Re: Facebook’s algorithm change has spurred an angry, Fox News-dominated News Feed
#37Fox News dominates ratings on TV so its not surprising they'd be #1 - there's also the fact this is "engagements" and not click-throughs. I'd wager good 15% of these are probably people clicking "Angry" not actually engaging. If you look at "content with the most shares" not surprisingly Reuters and Patch tops the list. OP's headline presumes any algorithm should achieve left/right balance - this is just impossible.…
BTW, I think it is not unreasonable to expect that different models of funding or engagement are differently represented on the left and right sides of politics. Contrary to certain views, the left and the right are not two equal, symmetric, graceful wings of a bird, keeping society in balance: they're two different worldviews and sets of fears and priorities. It's not inherently surprising that one would find their business more profitable with a smaller pool of paying customers, and the other finds more profit in a larger pool of casual visitors to whom to show ads, or that one finds more funding from the rich, or that one's worldview requires deeper and more nuanced storytelling than the other to support its conclusions.
Re: Facebook’s algorithm change has spurred an angry, Fox News-dominated News Feed
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's healthier to avoid dividing everybody into two categories, and interpreting everything with respect to those. But to answer your question within your own worldview, it's both.
Why aren’t you commenting this at the OP? Do you think “Fox News dominated” wasn’t intentionally playing into the idea of dividing everybody into two categories?
edit: also I did respond to the top level, but with a link to something which I felt contributed to my understanding of this topic:
Re: Facebook’s algorithm change has spurred an angry, Fox News-dominated News Feed
#39I wish it could be made illegal to optimise for engagement. “Engagement” their acceptable replacement word for what they really want to optimise for: Addiction.
If you want to make optimizing for engagement illegal—a plan I support, tbh—you need to eliminate capitalism either from the inside or the outside. From the inside, you can try to win hearts and minds of customers and employees with endeavors that aren't structured for profit, e.g., public-benefit corporations or perhaps hybrid non-profit models (like Mozilla, or like OpenAI's new thing, which I am cautiously optimistic about, or like Etsy before they gave up their B-corp status to save the business, which is part of the caution in my optimism). If you can hire all the best employees away from the Facebooks and Netflixes of the world to the Mozillas and Etsys of the world (which, given the number of software engineers who are incredibly frustrated about spending their days micro-optimizing ad engagement, doesn't actually seem that hard), you can probably out-compete them. Or, from the outside, you can just make for-profit companies past a certain point of profit straight-up illegal (which is to say, make the government cease to recognize corporate structures beyond certain limits - this isn't additional government intervention, this is just the removal of government protections for corporations like the corporate veil, work-for-hire, "right-to-work," tax advantages, etc.).
Re: Facebook’s algorithm change has spurred an angry, Fox News-dominated News Feed
#40why is fox news “angry” yet i’m sure feeds full of aoc and black lives matter would be considered woke. Biased article. The anger is very prevalent with both sides.