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

531–540 of 1001 posts

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

#531

Post by mikenew »

jjjensen90 wrote: post #494
creato wrote: post #486

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where did you get that number? That's actually far, far higher than I would have thought and quite encouraging...

On Feb 4th, Google said there were 20 million Youtube Premium users, and I believe the latest estimates put Youtube at 2 billion users, which would be a 1% subscription rate.

It would be interesting to see how they count a "user" too. If a good portion of those 2 billion people don't use YouTube very much then the % of users who are using it regularly and subscribing might be a lot higher.

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

#532

Post by knzhou »

DenisM wrote: post #525
knzhou wrote: 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…

> How can you simultaneously be outraged that Facebook is imposing any restrictions on speech at all, and horrified that it isn’t actively molding user behavior on a massive scale? There is a simple answer to that - HN is not a homogeneous set of people; different users have different opinions and express them at different times with different intensity.

True, but I would have expected at least a little visible disagreement. You never see anybody saying “wait a second, I think making the filter bubble effect a bit worse is actually worth it!” Each individual submission’s comments is just full throated, unanimous condemnation —- even when adjacent comments are directly contradictory. They just don’t engage with the possibility that deciding what to do might actually be hard.

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

#533

Post by GordonS »

cityzen wrote: post #518
knzhou wrote: 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 conside…

I agree, but also from a different angle.

The other day a friend told me about a takeaway place I should try. I couldn't find the menu on their website, and my friend replied that it was on theirbl Facebook page, and I should stop being a luddite.

No, no, dammit! We're literally giving the world wide web to a single corporation, and worse, normalising it - to a lot of people, Facebook basically is "the internet".

How can this possibility be in the best interest of users? It almost feels like the balance has swung too far, and it's perilously close to the point of no return...

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

#534

Post by Fiveplus »

This entire thread, discussion and the article in focus make me so relieved. I'm so proud of my decision to facebook, twitter and reddit altogether. There is soooo much less noise in my life. I'm finally reading books, enjoying my hobbies while still getting what 'I' like from the internet - RSS feeds to give me the latest and most popular developments in news without any user generated comments. 1-on-1 messaging services to help me stay connected with my loved and dear ones and an occasional tour of websites like HN and my favorite blogs from the bookmark folder. I do not want the reader to assume my model is perfect, it's subjective. But that's the point - it is what I make out to be the perfect browsing model and intended use-case of internet to me. Another minor point, ever since I moved away from reading what 'people' have to say in comments, it de cluttered my mind.

The internet is what you make of it. I let it direct how I used it, and getting myself away from that grip and 'sucked into' environment is a blessing.

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

#535

Post by mistermann »

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…

> There is no vaccine yet for this.

There is a fair amount of anecdotal evidence suggesting that psychedelics can have a significant impact when used correctly.

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

#536

Post by [deleted] »

creato wrote: post #486
arihant wrote: post #484

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Where did you get that number? That's actually far, far higher than I would have thought and quite encouraging...

[deleted]

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

#537

Post by Abekkus »

arihant wrote: post #484
a1369209993 wrote: post #478

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.

I paid for youtube for a while, but I did not get a different algorithm. It was the same feed of addictive, stressful content. I stopped paying once I noticed this.

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

#538

Post by trisiak »

monadic2 wrote: post #508
arihant wrote: post #484

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Compare how much money google can make off ads in a month to $15. You’re paying for way, way, way more than just removing ads and it’s obvious

That's why you get other benefits that are much harder to price in.

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

#539

Post by ereyes01 »

fpgaminer wrote: post #299

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…

Another early assumption about the internet and computers in general is that users were going to exert large amounts of control over the software and systems they use. This assumption has thus far been apparently invalidated, as people by far prefer to be mere consumers of software that are designed to make its designers money. Even OSS is largely driven by companies who need to run monetized infrastructure, though perhaps you don't pay for it directly.

Given that users are generally not interested in exerting a high level of sophisticated control over software they use, how then is the concept of a user agent AI/filter any different at a fundamental level? It probably won't be created and maintained as a public benefit in any meaningful way, and users will not be programming and tuning the AI as needed to deliver the needed accuracy. I don't think AI has yet reached a level of sophistication where content as broad a range as what's found on the internet (or even just Facebook) can be curated to engage the human intellect beyond measuring addictive engagement, without significant user intervention.

Hopefully I'm wrong, as I do wish I could engage with something like Facebook without having to deal with ads or with content curated to get my blood boiling. Sometimes I do wonder how much it is Facebook vs. human tendency under the guise of an online persona, as both are clearly involved here.

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

#540

Post by neilk »

knzhou wrote: 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…

Facebook is sometimes in a difficult position. But, with respect, I don't think it's correct to say that it's the fault of their critics for putting them in a dilemma.

Facebook does not face outrage for "literally remov[ing] anything". In the real world, Facebook is removing thousands of items every day, maybe tens of thousands. Most of them are totally justified. Is HN outraged about that?

Also, keep vs. remove is a false dilemma. Facebook has many more options than keeping or removing items. Most of the time, it's about what they choose to boost or reward in other ways. https://twitter.com/BKCHarvard/status/1263891198068039680

That said, I think you're right that being an effective arbiter on planetary speech is a difficult place to be, even for people with the best intentions, and FB didn't get where they are today by having the best intentions all the time.

But personally, I think that calls into question whether Facebook or anything like them should even exist.

Post reply on HN