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

421–430 of 1001 posts

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

#421

Post by thrwn_frthr_awy »

ENOTTY wrote: post #302

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…

I thought the most interesting part was Mark asking not to be bothered with these types of issues in the future. By saying do it, but cut it 80%, he sounds like he wants to be able to say he made the decision to "reduce" extremism, but without really making a change.

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

#422

Post by A4ET8a8uTh0 »

tbabb wrote: post #410
supernova87a wrote: post #149

I really didn't realize until perhaps the last 2 years that Facebook fundamentally tapped some hidden human need/instinct to argue with people who they believe are incorrect. Specifically, and more importantly, combined with the human inability to actively decide to not pay attention when things are inconsequential or not yet worth arguing about. Sometimes, just shutting up about an issue and not discussing it is the…

I really don't like the "it can't be helped" attitude about what Facebook has become. They made a choice to throw gasoline on the flames of these aspects of human behavior. Few people seem to realize that Facebook could have been a force for good, if they had made different choices or had more integrity when it comes to the design and vision of their platform. The way that things happened is not they only possible wa…

I am not sure I can agree. Facebook did not change in any significant way. It still serves as a platform to boost your message. It is, at best, simply a reflection of the human condition. The previous example was the internet and some of the revelations it brought about us as a species. FB just focused it as much as it could.

Force for good. I do not want to sound like this, but how, in your vision, that would look like? This is a real question.

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

#423

Post by bentcorner »

maxerickson wrote: post #403
supernova87a wrote: post #149

I really didn't realize until perhaps the last 2 years that Facebook fundamentally tapped some hidden human need/instinct to argue with people who they believe are incorrect. Specifically, and more importantly, combined with the human inability to actively decide to not pay attention when things are inconsequential or not yet worth arguing about. Sometimes, just shutting up about an issue and not discussing it is the…

How does your postulation map to say, anti-vax?

I don't personally think it's productive for me to engage with these kind of people but I will definitely support and cheer on others doing so: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q65aYK0AoMc (NSFW content)

(Personally I get too wound up in internet arguments and it's just not a healthy space for my head to be in)

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

#424

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

pdonis wrote: post #374
gonehome wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 suppor…

> unless you can get people to value trying to figure out what's true and updating on evidence itself What evidence could you give to disprove the belief that abortion is murder? The belief is not a claim about evidence; it's a claim about priorities, as the GP said. Or, if you like, about what actions count as belonging to what categories.

A more interesting question is why is abortion consistently used as a tribal issue in US politics.

Of course there is an underlying difference of opinion, and of course it matters to those on both sides.

But it matters because the media have done an exceptionally good job of herding people into different camps - by focusing on a small and standardised collection of divisive issues and amplifying the rhetoric around them.

Does someone benefit from these divisions, and from the loss of civility and civic cohesion they create, and perhaps also from the implied promotion of violent oppositional defiant subjectivity over rational argument that powers them?

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

#425

Post by goatinaboat »

edgarvaldes wrote: post #255
supernova87a wrote: post #149

I really didn't realize until perhaps the last 2 years that Facebook fundamentally tapped some hidden human need/instinct to argue with people who they believe are incorrect. Specifically, and more importantly, combined with the human inability to actively decide to not pay attention when things are inconsequential or not yet worth arguing about. Sometimes, just shutting up about an issue and not discussing it is the…

>Facebook fundamentally tapped some hidden human need/instinct to argue with people who they believe are incorrect. Maybe FB do it better, but it is the same in every online "forum" where you get notifications about comments.

Maybe FB do it better, but it is the same in every online "forum" where you get notifications about comments.

Facebook influences what you see to a far greater extent than a tradition forum did.

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

#427

Post by mark-r »

tstrimple wrote: post #378
mark-r wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Where do you draw the line between someone on the internet "being wrong", and someone on the internet spreading dangerous misinformation? Sure, walking away from the first is often a good course of action, but what about the second?

It's often very hard to tell the difference. If I ever find myself in doubt, I try to default to walking away. Not always successfully.

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

#428

Post by supernova87a »

casefields wrote: post #14

Mirror: http://archive.md/YQeJY

I will make a parenthetical point that the WSJ, while expensive to subscribe, is a very high quality news source and worth paying for if it's in your budget. There are discounts to be found on various sites. And god knows their newsroom needs all the subscribers it can get (just like NYT, etc) to stay independent of their opinion-page-leaning business model that tends to be not so objective (the two are highly separated). Luckily they have a lot of business subscribers who keep them afloat, but I decided to subscribe years ago and never regretted it.

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

#429

Post by 12xo »

derg wrote: post #182
supernova87a wrote: post #149

I really didn't realize until perhaps the last 2 years that Facebook fundamentally tapped some hidden human need/instinct to argue with people who they believe are incorrect. Specifically, and more importantly, combined with the human inability to actively decide to not pay attention when things are inconsequential or not yet worth arguing about. Sometimes, just shutting up about an issue and not discussing it is the…

In general and not necessarily related to just facebook, but one of the best things I've come to learn about myself and the world around me is that sometimes the absolute _best_ thing you can do for yourself is to just shut up and walk away, even if you know in your heart of hearts that you are correct.

A big reason why old people speak less...

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

#430

Post by Causality1 »

supernova87a wrote: post #149

I really didn't realize until perhaps the last 2 years that Facebook fundamentally tapped some hidden human need/instinct to argue with people who they believe are incorrect. Specifically, and more importantly, combined with the human inability to actively decide to not pay attention when things are inconsequential or not yet worth arguing about. Sometimes, just shutting up about an issue and not discussing it is the…

People do go on Facebook and argue with others, but that's not the core of the divisiveness. Rather, people sort themselves into opposing groups and spend most of their time talking amongst themselves about how good they are and how horrible the other group is.
Post reply on HN