Live data from Hacker News

Facebook executives shut down efforts to make the site less divisive

wsj.com

511–520 of 1001 posts

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

#511

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The primary content no user wants to see any every user agent would filter out is ads. Not that you're wrong, but: that's the fucking point ! Advertising delenda est.

Pay for Facebook then. 1.5% of total YouTube users subscribe for YT Premium. I love how the smartest minds will ignore the most primitive economics. Ads work. For everyone. Except deluded.

Paid-for Facebook would be a viable business if it wasn't competing with free-facebook. It's not ignoring economics to think that Facebook is causing significant negative externalities that ought to be priced or regulated to allow more ethical alternatives to thrive.

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

#512

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fundamental flaw is this: The primary content no user wants to see any every user agent would filter out is ads . Since ads are the primary way sites stay in business, they are obligated to fight against user agents or other intermediary systems. The ultimate problem is that Facebook doesn't want to show you good, enriching content from your friends and family. They want to show you ads. The good content is just…

That is how it is today. But does it have to be like that ? What is the minimum revenue per user required for service like FB to run. While everyone is sceptical on whether such a service can reach critical mass to make financial sense, a brand new FB replacement may not be able to do it, However FB itself can certainly give that as an option without hurting their revenues substantially. I was sceptical on the value…

Minimum doesn't matter, the only question is if it's more profitable than the current approach. Facebook makes $9/user/quarter. That's every user no matter how little they use the site.

The issue however is that the users advertisers care about are the ones with disposable income. The users most likely to opt out of ads are the ones with disposable income. Thus the marginal cost to Facebook from such users is significantly more than $9/quarter.

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

#513
post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I miss the days when my feed wasn't curated at all and just sorted by most recent post. The whole point of having friends and being able to (un)follow people is to I can curate my own feed. I don't use Facebook anymore except for hobby related groups like my motorcycling group.

Same. I miss the days of the chronological feed. Facebook's algorithms seem to choose a handful of people and groups I'm connected to and constantly show me their content and nothing else. It's always illuminating when I look someone up after wondering what happened to them only to see that they've been keeping up with Facebook, but I just don't see any of their posts.

yesterday, in fact, I saw a post from a family member that I really wanted to read, I started but was interrupted. When I had a chance to focus again, I re-opened the FB app and the post was nowhere to be seen, scrolled up, scrolled down, it was gone. I had to search for my family member to find it again. Super frustrating, and makes you wonder what FB decided you didn't need to see (which I guess is the point of this whole thread)...

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

#514

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fundamental flaw is this: The primary content no user wants to see any every user agent would filter out is ads . Since ads are the primary way sites stay in business, they are obligated to fight against user agents or other intermediary systems. The ultimate problem is that Facebook doesn't want to show you good, enriching content from your friends and family. They want to show you ads. The good content is just…

That is how it is today. But does it have to be like that ? What is the minimum revenue per user required for service like FB to run. While everyone is sceptical on whether such a service can reach critical mass to make financial sense, a brand new FB replacement may not be able to do it, However FB itself can certainly give that as an option without hurting their revenues substantially. I was sceptical on the value…

> I am sure FB can build a financial model around a freemium offering if they wanted to.

They probably could. As they could also charge you a premium and then profit two times on top of you — with your fee and then by selling your data to third parties. Why? Because who would know that was happening? Corporations have no moral compass dictating their actions. The bottom line being what's best for investors.

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

#515

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The primary content no user wants to see any every user agent would filter out is ads. Not that you're wrong, but: that's the fucking point ! Advertising delenda est.

Pay for Facebook then. 1.5% of total YouTube users subscribe for YT Premium. I love how the smartest minds will ignore the most primitive economics. Ads work. For everyone. Except deluded.

To be honest, I'd happily pay for YT Premium if Google didn't use my data to personalise other results and content on the internet. I personally stop using products/services that dictate what content is deemed "suitable" for my consumption. I'll happily be served adverts so long as I'm not getting manipulated.

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

#516
post #457

The degree to which “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” is in effect here is remarkable. If Facebook literally removes anything, then HN is outraged because it’s censorship, paternalism, all that. But if Facebook does not adopt an actively paternalistic attitude where it shows people content that they deem is “good for them” , then that’s outrageous too. Both complaints predictably rocket to the top of HN. Which…

You people want less government, but you also want more. Which is it, guys?

You could say this about any divisive issue if you lump all sides together.

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

#517

You know what the internet needs? User agents. We've got this idea stuck in our heads that only the website itself is allowed to curate content. Only Facebook gets to decide which Facebook posts to show us. What if, instead, you had a personal AI that read every Facebook post and then decided what to show you. Trained on your own preferences, under your control, with whatever settings you like. Instead of being tuned…

This misses the point. Facebook refuses to look inwardly or mess with their core moneymaker, regardless of how it affects people. Noone is ever going to sip from the firehose just like we'll never again get a simple view of friend's posts sorted by creation date.

I think the real problem is Facebook's need to be such a large company. They brought this on themselves trying to take over the world. Maybe they need a Bell-style breakup

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

#518
post #457

The degree to which “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” is in effect here is remarkable. If Facebook literally removes anything, then HN is outraged because it’s censorship, paternalism, all that. But if Facebook does not adopt an actively paternalistic attitude where it shows people content that they deem is “good for them” , then that’s outrageous too. Both complaints predictably rocket to the top of HN. Which…

The right course of action is to stop using Facebook. That's it, very simple. people here being polarized is exactly what Facebook wants. Current facebook users are akin to opioid addicts... probably found some relief from whatever social pain they were feeling that now they have accepted selling their privacy for their fix.

I would say I can't wait for the day that Facebook is gone but it will be a long time considering the amount of insecure and unintelligent people that need a platform like that to avoid ever being challenged in the real world.

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

#519

You know what the internet needs? User agents. We've got this idea stuck in our heads that only the website itself is allowed to curate content. Only Facebook gets to decide which Facebook posts to show us. What if, instead, you had a personal AI that read every Facebook post and then decided what to show you. Trained on your own preferences, under your control, with whatever settings you like. Instead of being tuned…

The fundamental flaw is this: The primary content no user wants to see any every user agent would filter out is ads . Since ads are the primary way sites stay in business, they are obligated to fight against user agents or other intermediary systems. The ultimate problem is that Facebook doesn't want to show you good, enriching content from your friends and family. They want to show you ads. The good content is just…

>Since ads are the primary way sites stay in business, they are obligated to fight against user agents or other intermediary systems.

Not all users hate ads in principle, just in practice. In theory, you'd be making the users select ads for relevance and not being annoying. But obviously, the site wants to show ads based on how much they're paying and "not being annoying" only factors in if pushes people off the site entirely.

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

#520
post #453
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…

Sorry for the self-reference outside of a moderation context, but I wrote what turned into an entire essay about this last night: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23308098 . It's about how this plays out specifically on HN. Short version: it's because this place is less divisive that it feels more divisive. HN is probably the least divisive community of its size and scope on the internet (if there are others, I'd…

First of all, less divisive environment means you interact with people of different opinions which means that few interactions will be with exactly like-minded people.

Environments where all people tend to think exactly the same are typically extremist in some way, resulting from some kind of polarization process that eliminates people that don't express opinion at the extreme of spectrum. They are either removed forcibly or remove themselves when they get dissatisfied.

One way HN stays away from this polarization process is because of the discussion topics and the kind of person that typically enjoys these discussions. Staying away from mainstream politics, religion, etc. and focusing mainly on technological trivia means people of very different opinions can stay civilized discussing non-divisive topics.

Also it helps that extremist and uncivilized opinions tend to be quickly suppressed by the community thanks to vote-supported tradition. I have been reading HN from very close to start (even though I have created the account much further). I think the first users were much more VC/development oriented and as new users were coming they tend to observe and conform to the tradition.

(I red your piece. I think I figured it out. The users actually select themselves on HN though in a different way. The people who can't cope with diverse community can't find place for themselves, because there is no way to block diverse opinion, and in effect remove themselves from here and this is what allows HN to survive. The initial conditions were people who actually invited diverse opinion which allowed this equilibrium).

Post reply on HN