[deleted]
Facebook isn’t free speech, it’s algorithmic amplification optimized for outrage
51–60 of 178 posts
Re: Facebook isn’t free speech, it’s algorithmic amplification optimized for outrage
#52Comment deleted because this doesn’t appear to be the right place to discuss nuanced issues about Facebook.
You believe Facebook to be the victim, or otherwise unfairly maligned, despite it being one of the world’s most powerful and influential companies in existence?
Re: Facebook isn’t free speech, it’s algorithmic amplification optimized for outrage
#53Don't people know how to use Facebook? There's no outrage on my newsfeed because I've eliminated/unfollowed/hidden it. My cool friends and family are left, I'm reading some pretty interesting groups I like, and I try not to argue/provoke anyone when I make comments. This doesn't inhibit my speech, it only makes me pay attention to tone. I wish the people who hate Facebook would get off it and then talk about somethin…
The problem is that this only works for people diligent enough to change their defaults or extensively filter their preferences.
And telling a platform that you’re not interested in a certain kind of ad or piece of content doesn’t guarantee you’ll never see it again. Your feedback is a suggestion, not a command.
Other problems include when you literally stop being able to contact certain entities or get up-to-date information from them without using/signing in to a social platform.
Re: Facebook isn’t free speech, it’s algorithmic amplification optimized for outrage
#54Sounds like how people argue against printing press in 15th century. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110119/05022912725/fifte...
well the concern about the monks was misplaced but the printing press actually kickstarted an entire century of schisms and religious wars and unless you're willing to just write that degree of disruption off as a minor detail the critics might have had a point.
Obviously throwing the press away would have been both impossible and inadvisable, but clearly there's a lesson here about the potential dangers of uncontrolled mass amplification of voice in a society that wasn't ready for it.
Re: Facebook isn’t free speech, it’s algorithmic amplification optimized for outrage
#55Comment deleted because this doesn’t appear to be the right place to discuss nuanced issues about Facebook.
Someone a few days ago linked to this snippet of an interview with Naval Ravikant on Joe Rogan's podcast. Their lack of differentiating themselves from publishers has put them on a slippery slope
Re: Facebook isn’t free speech, it’s algorithmic amplification optimized for outrage
#56There was a period where feeds were just wall to wall outrage. Literally, at trump, at obama, at random other friends on facebook. It was crazy. Reality - life's much better getting off social media and hanging out with friends in real life - and instagram has a bit less outrage machine stuff - easier / quieter place to share pix of the kids playing and catchup with what folks are up to.
Regarding Insta, it’s interesting how some platforms are inherently more peaceful. The lack of links? Tiny, almost irrelevant image descriptions? Barely a commenting system to speak of? Just vanity and pretty people. It’s quite nice. And makes for a good case study.
Now if we could do that for actual togetherness, that’s be the real trick, especially given that’s the promise of social media in the first place.
Re: Facebook isn’t free speech, it’s algorithmic amplification optimized for outrage
#57Comment deleted because this doesn’t appear to be the right place to discuss nuanced issues about Facebook.
I’d prefer if their profit model was made more clear.
They’re clearly acting in an abetting manner for the unethical and sometimes criminal activity that happens on their site.
If this means they are forced to change drastically as a result of this then so be it.
At this point it’s them or our democracy.
Re: Facebook isn’t free speech, it’s algorithmic amplification optimized for outrage
#58I think that is misdirection. There are two parts that I don't think are contradicted by this article: 1) Facebook, twitter, and other social networks give people a voice and a community. 2) If these platforms are censored in a country, it has a great effect on free speech in the country. Now, there are some good questions related to the article to ask here: a) Are these platforms actually a problem because of the am…
This debate centers around whether Facebook is a publisher or a carrier (like a phone service). There are some ways that Facebook inserts itself much more directly than a carrier would: 1) They control the feed algorithms. 2) They set policies around what activity is allowed by users. 3) They run ads at their discretion. 4) They control all of the application tooling, which in turn establishes what users can and can'…
1) I can tweak what is shown on the feed to good effect
2) I don't want porn, terrorism, hate or scams on my newsfeed
3) It cost a lot of money to run and maintain Facebook
4) Apple controls apps on it's store, Google too. Control has to be put in place to prevent scams, hacks and bitcoin miners from being installed. Facebook isn't the internet. It's a safe social space for my 81 yr old mother.
Re: Facebook isn’t free speech, it’s algorithmic amplification optimized for outrage
#59Don't people know how to use Facebook? There's no outrage on my newsfeed because I've eliminated/unfollowed/hidden it. My cool friends and family are left, I'm reading some pretty interesting groups I like, and I try not to argue/provoke anyone when I make comments. This doesn't inhibit my speech, it only makes me pay attention to tone. I wish the people who hate Facebook would get off it and then talk about somethin…
I spent 2 years trying to “fix” my feed before leaving Facebook altogether. There was no way at the time - the alg would always surface the absolute worst things that anyone I knew would post because the algorithm knew it would get the most responses.
Re: Facebook isn’t free speech, it’s algorithmic amplification optimized for outrage
#60Sounds like how people argue against printing press in 15th century. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110119/05022912725/fifte...
If printing press in the 15th century is the analogy, we will have Thirty Years' War ahead of us.
Martin Luther was one of the first political troublemakers in the printing press era. He used printed pamphlets to spread his message. His use of language was extremely hateful and vulgar. Martin Luther would have been perfect for Twitter or FB.
...
Martin Luther @MartinLuther
>“A natural donkey, which carries sacks to the mill and eats thistles, can judge you – indeed, all creatures can! For a donkey knows it is a donkey and not a cow. A stone knows it is a stone; water is water, and so on through all the creatures. But you mad asses do not know you are asses.”
Martin Luther @MartinLuther
>“May God punish you, I say, you shameless, barefaced liar, devil’s mouthpiece, who dares to spit out, before God, before all the angels, before the dear sun, before all the world, your devil’s filth.”
Martin Luther @MartinLuther
>For you are an excellent person, as skillful, clever, and versed in Holy Scripture as a cow in a walnut tree or a sow on a harp.”
Martin Luther @MartinLuther
>“You are a crude ass, and an ass you will remain!”
Martin Luther @MartinLuther
>You are desperate, thorough arch-rascals, murderers, traitors, liars, the very scum of all the most evil people on earth. You are full of all the worst devils in hell – full, full, and so full that you can do nothing but vomit, throw, and blow out devils!”