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

641–650 of 1001 posts

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

#641

Post by TheHegemon »

solarkraft wrote: post #576
scotty79 wrote: post #392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you're unpredictable you're a problem. But you are predictable, even if you think you are unpredictable, you are just a bit more adventurous. Algorithm can capture that as well. It will be easier for algorithm that works on your behalf.

This makes me think of a talk with an AI-optimistic Microsoft sales guy I had a few years ago. His argument was essentially the same:"Look, it's no problem to have an AI curate everything for you because the algorithm will just know what you want, even if your habits are unusual!" Of course this hasn't happened yet and I doubt it ever will. Maybe I'm just insane, but most of the recommendations from services I have f…

Interesting because I think I have some rather random assortment of hobbies that generally tend to have no overlap and I get pretty good recommendations all the time.

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

#642

Post by seph-reed »

pwdisswordfish2 wrote: post #526
munificent wrote: post #461

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…

"The ultimate problem is that Facebook doesn't want to show you good, enrishing content from your friends and family." Well, it is someone else's website. What do you expect Zuckerberg has his own interests in mind. In 2020, it is still too difficult for everyone to set up their own website, so they settle for a page on someone else's. If exchanging content with friends and family (not swaths of the public who visit…

Why are you defending Zuckerberg for being a dick? If you have power, you have responsibility: full fucking stop.

The idea that it's okay to be a selfish child with power is tantamount to allowing driving while drunk. Power is deadly, you can just as easily crush a persons life as you could their legs with a car. Don't drive drunk, don't be in power if you can't be a responsible citizen about it.

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

#643

Post by IG_Semmelweiss »

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…

This already exists. Its called Facebook purity.

It obeys what you say. No cats? No problem. No babies? No problem.

And yes, it also does filter out ads.

FBP

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

#644

Post by themacguffinman »

pessimizer wrote: post #587
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.

If everybody paid for facebook, it would have as many ads, if not more. That companies would leave money on the table with no incentive to do so is a bizarre self-justifying myth that people who live off advertising tell themselves. You pay for cable. Paying customers are a better audience for ads than deadbeats.

But everybody doesn't pay for Facebook, and the reason they don't do so is because Facebook is funded by ads and no one has paid for a Facebook without ads. But sure, Facebook might hypothetically still have ads if users paid, and my grandmother might hypothetically be a bicycle if she had wheels.

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

#645

Post by kstrauser »

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…

I haven't touched this in years, but one time I made a little project[1] to analyze the people I was following on Twitter and recommend who I might want to unfollow based on their attitudes. People who posted negative stuff very frequently were at the top of my list to ditch; I don't need extra input pushing me toward misery. The first few runs were very illuminated, but not surprising, like "wow, now that you mention it, Joe does saw awful stuff approximately hourly".

I would love to have an agent that could apply those sorts of analyses to my data sources. In my case, I wouldn't want to filter out bad news, but unnecessarily nasty spins on it. I'd find that super valuable.

[1] https://github.com/kstrauser/judgish

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

#646

Post by schuyler2d »

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.

The irony is that there's a disincentive to skip ads on 'paid' users even more -- because people willing to pay for things are even more valuable to advertisers -- so if you make a paid option with no ads, you're also gutting the value of the freemium-ads option (beyond the average user loss)

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

#647

Post by justapassenger »

munificent wrote: post #461
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…

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…

> The primary content no user wants to see any every user agent would filter out is ads

"no user"? Nope. People buy magazines, that are 90% ads. Subscribe to newsletters. Hunt for coupons. Watch home shopping channels. Etc, etc.

There's large part of population that wants to see ads. Scammy and bad ads? No. Good and relevant ads? A LOT of people do want them. Even tech-folks, who claim that ads are worst thing for humanity. Don't you want to learn about sale for new tech gadgets? Discounts for AWS? Good rent deals?

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

#649

Post by subsubzero »

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…

Zuck doesn't care about anything healthy as long as that healthy content reduces ad revenue/and or user activity(MAU/DAU) metrics. Basically he wants to extract enough time/money from each user to just be bearable for that user that they do not leave the site in disgust. Once you realize this cardinal truth from FB all the reprehensible actions from Zuck/senior leaders make perfect sense.

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

#650

Post by ponker »

rockinghigh wrote: post #612
TeMPOraL wrote: post #593

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, they wouldn't, unless advertising gets banned. They'd instead accept your payment and find a way to shove ads in anyway, in a covert or overt way, just as many paid services do, because why leave money on the table?

YouTube and Spotify went that subscription route and it works well. There are no ads.

And Spotify is worth $35 billion to Facebook's $660 billion.
Post reply on HN