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

Facebook executives shut down efforts to make the site less divisive

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 1001 posts

Re: Facebook executives shut down efforts to make the site less divisive

#301

Post by Bedon292 »

lmilcin wrote: post #98

The problem really is platforms that give people content to please them. An algorithm selects content that you are likely to agree with or that you have shown previous interest. This only causes people to get reinforced in their beliefs and this leads to polarization. For example, when I browse videos on Youtube I will only get democratic content (even though I am from Poland). Seems as soon as you click on couple en…

I think that is not quite right, but the distinction is subtle. The algorithm selects the content that you are most likely to be engaged with. For most people likely that is the filter bubble, and seeing only what they agree with. But for some folks, they actively like to have debates (or troll one another) and see more content they will not agree with, because what they don't agree with gets more engagement. The intent is to keep you engaged and active as long as possible on the site, and feed whatever drives that behavior.

Re: Facebook executives shut down efforts to make the site less divisive

#302

Post by ENOTTY »

Here's the paragraph I found most damning. It would make me want to assign liability to Facebook.

> The high number of extremist groups was concerning, the presentation says. Worse was Facebook’s realization that its algorithms were responsible for their growth. The 2016 presentation states that “64% of all extremist group joins are due to our recommendation tools” and that most of the activity came from the platform’s “Groups You Should Join” and “Discover” algorithms: “Our recommendation systems grow the problem.”

Re: Facebook executives shut down efforts to make the site less divisive

#303

Post by eropple »

StillBored wrote: post #130
eropple wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Few people in such a meeting are "risk[ing] everything". I've quit jobs rather than doing sketchy things. For people in these industries, there's always a next job.

I don't think this is a question of someone doing "sketchy" things. Its a question of someone in the room questioning a morally questionable action, being implemented by a part of the organization as a whole. Quiting over it, or whatever likely doesn't even have an effect. Someone on the team required to implement it is going to follow the bosses orders. This appears to have happened a few times with members of the U…

If you're just gonna keep doing it, you're not "staying and fighting" at all.

You don't have to be the just-following-orders guy, is what I'm saying. Somebody else might--that doesn't have to be you, and shouldn't be.

Re: Facebook executives shut down efforts to make the site less divisive

#304

Post by gonehome »

pathseeker wrote: post #265
gonehome wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is generally helpful to keep in mind. I also think there’s an art to deescalation and discussing ideas or persuading someone you disagree with to see an alternative view (and then giving them space to change their mind). Productive discussion isn’t possible with everyone or even one individual depending on where they are in their life, but I’ve generally found it works better than expected when you can r…

>I also think there’s an art to deescalation and discussing ideas or persuading someone you disagree with to see an alternative view This doesn't really work with core views like politics. Some of the most polarizing topics are not because the opposite side can't see your view, it's because you fundamentally disagree on priorities. Examples: Anti-abortion people aren't going to be persuaded by yet another view on wom…

I disagree on this - I have a more optimistic view of the ability for people to change how they think.

You're right that a core belief tied into someone's identity is not going to be changed by new evidence, unless you can get people to value trying to figure out what's true and updating on evidence itself (rather than having an 'answer' already and just using motivated reasoning to come up with arguments that support their 'answer'). This is hard.

I know I've personally gone from someone who made these kind of bad reasoning mistakes - the smarter you are the more insidious they can be because you're better at being a clever arguer and coming up with plausible sounding reasons while ignoring or rationalizing contradicting evidence. I've worked hard to get better at it (and I still am, it's an ongoing process). Yes, this is only a sample size of one, but I think it's possible.

I have an optimistic view of the capacity for a person to learn how to think better, while simultaneously having a pessimistic view of the general public's current ability to think rationally. This may seem like a conflict, but really it just means that I think it's possible for us to be a lot better than we are, while recognizing it's a bigger project than just stating the specific evidence available for any specific argument.

People have to be willing to consider why they believe what they believe, and be honest about the potential to change their mind based on new information that contradicts what they believe to be true.

I think that's the goal we have to work toward first.

Re: Facebook executives shut down efforts to make the site less divisive

#305

Post by tdhoot »

pkilgore wrote: post #165
LordHumungous wrote: post #33

> Facebook policy chief Joel Kaplan, who played a central role in vetting proposed changes, argued at the time that efforts to make conversations on the platform more civil were “paternalistic,” said people familiar with his comments. I think Joel was right.

Imagine an average level of civility in a society `C`. Lets say users of your product, due to your product, operate at `0.5 C`. Is changing the product so they operate at a higher `0.75 C` or back to `C` "paternalistic"? Why? I can see the argument for moving `C` to `1.5 C` as paternalistic. But when you're already actively affecting `C` in one way, why do we moralize about moving it the other way? What makes down OK…

Paternalistic is thinking you are in a position to define C and measure it.

Re: Facebook executives shut down efforts to make the site less divisive

#306

Post by jbay808 »

crocodiletears wrote: post #171
jbay808 wrote: post #151

I'm no fan of Facebook. But for what it's worth, back when I was still using it in ~2010, it helped me learn a lot about the worldviews of people on the opposite end of the political spectrum who I rarely if ever interacted with in person. The mechanism for this was Facebook Groups - I'd hang out in climate change denial groups talking to denialists and asking them questions. And although it didn't change my mind and…

It's less like that anymore. Group raids involving post reporting became a huge issue a while back, so most political pages use membership application questions requiring you to positively affirm or signal in-group association before joining. Nothing prevents you from lying to get into a group, but it's oddly effective as a mechanism for preventing partisan opponents from engaging in any dialogue.

Ah, good to know.

This is why we can't have nice things.

Re: Facebook executives shut down efforts to make the site less divisive

#307

Post by ShellfishMeme »

mark-r wrote: post #280
Vysero wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Close your eyes, hold your breath and hope the situation resolves itself, that's your solution? I don't believe in a: "hidden human need/instinct to argue with people". There is nothing hidden about human conflict. It is as natural as any conflict; as natural as space and time. In fact, without conflict evolution can not exist. Obviously, a good portion of the arguments being had have the potential of bearing no frui…

There is definitely such a need, which is why this cartoon is one of my favorites of all time: https://xkcd.com/386/

I always have to think about that one when I had just been spending 20 minutes trying to formulate an elaborate response to someone's comment, just to proceed to sigh and close the thing without posting it. Probably most of the time it was for the better too.

Re: Facebook executives shut down efforts to make the site less divisive

#308

Post by banads »

bpodgursky wrote: post #93
1propionyl wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The East India Trading Company is just an extension of the open seas."

Yes, a company which owns large chunks of India and has a well-used private army numbering in the tens of thousands, is a great analogy for a social-media company. The East India Company was responsible, at least in part, for tens of millions of deaths in various famines, and to equate the two fails both by being ridiculous (Facebook is not a private empire with an empire), and trivializes the actual damage done by t…

Social media companies have played a primary role in overthrowing governments and manipulating elections across the world.

Re: Facebook executives shut down efforts to make the site less divisive

#309

Post by AlexandrB »

jcims wrote: post #104
umvi wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So, it seems that death is not a deterrent. Well, the tobacco industry is still alive and well, and those companies literally peddle death.

They peddle a high risk product. So do companies that manufacture motorcycles and parachutes.

This comparison is flawed in several respects. The most obvious is that cigarette companies spent decades intentionally misleading the public about the dangers of their product. This is not the same as just selling a potentially dangerous product, especially one where the dangers are so viscerally obvious as with a parachute.

Re: Facebook executives shut down efforts to make the site less divisive

#310

Post by downerending »

mac01021 wrote: post #279
gimboland wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And Hacker News! > some hidden human need/instinct to argue with people who they believe are incorrect I've said it before, I'll probably say it again: this place is chock full of people just itching to tell you you're wrong and why. Don't get me wrong: obviously there's also a hell of a lot of great discussion and insightful technical knowhow being shared by real experts — but in my experience I also do have to wade…

I, for one, wouldn't have it any other way! When I'm wrong I want it explained to me why. Even when I'm right about something controversial, I want to see the best arguments to the contrary. I don't want people to be less argumentative. I just want a higher intellectual caliber than what's generally available on facebook or twitter, and HN fits the bill reasonably well.

It's tricky. One has to learn how to disagree without being disagreeable.

Or, get your fuck-you billions and people will start agreeing with you a lot. :-)

Post reply on HN