No matter what Facebook does, journalists (fake news) will criticize them.
Facebook executives shut down efforts to make the site less divisive
681–690 of 1001 posts
Re: Facebook executives shut down efforts to make the site less divisive
#682You 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…
"TiVo, but for the browser."
Re: Facebook executives shut down efforts to make the site less divisive
#683Earlier quoted context omitted.
> AI that read every Facebook post I doubt FB would let you do that. It's "their" content.
Sure, you can't read every facebook post, but if your browser extension is scanning your feed and suppressing posts for you, how can they even stop you?
It's a violation of copyright under current interpretations of the Copyright Act. Companies like FB are well aware of this and send C&Ds to this effect every day.
Re: Facebook executives shut down efforts to make the site less divisive
#684Earlier 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…
Some families already have their own slack. chat, post articles, share pics, and even put content in appropriate channels that you're free to join or leave! I already do this with my friends group of about 20 cuz it's more than good enough.
Re: Facebook executives shut down efforts to make the site less divisive
#685Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 hu…
Honestly a truly well-made ad targeting on me, something that really ticked all the right boxes... gosh I'd spend 3-4× more, easily. Because ordinarily I just don't lose time on shopping websites, but I'm kinda of a spender when I do find things that I like. And I'm a sucker for good deals, I'm a patient prey hunter, I can wait months in ambush for the right deal. Anecdotally of course, as one of those tech-folks who…
I guess I just don't buy enough things to want to see any ads at all. I don't have any particular issue selecting products either.
A well targeted ad doesn't need to serve you well, it just needs to convince you to buy; I have a lot of faith in myself and I'd say those are often the same thing, but experiences may differ.
Re: Facebook executives shut down efforts to make the site less divisive
#686I 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. If you realize it’s a dumpster fire then delete your account and move on with life. If that line of thinking is a challenge in absolutely any way the problem is addiction. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Addiction
It's been 5 years now. Facebook ads used be creepy, but polite: "Come back to Facebook"
But not anymore, black text one white background:
"Go To Facebook"
next ad:
"See What You've Missed From Friends And Family"
Kill it with fire! The only advice I have about the company and it's products.
Re: Facebook executives shut down efforts to make the site less divisive
#687You 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…
I sure am tired of hearing about "the fundamental flaw" in empowering people. What you describe is not a flaw in empowerment, it's a flaw in their business model, and it's one that can that be fixed (i.e. "innovate a better business model"). Can we stop propagating the idea that people who do not want to use their limited bandwidth and processing power to rasterize someone else's advertising are somehow "flawed"?
The only thing more insane than blaming users for having self-interest are the people who pretend that Facebook et al. are somehow owed the business model they have, painting ad-blockers as some kind of dangerous society-destabilizing technology instead of the commonsense response to shitty business practices it clearly is.
Re: Facebook executives shut down efforts to make the site less divisive
#688Earlier quoted context omitted.
I guess it's worth clarifying what exactly you're talking about. If you want to share images and text with a small group of people, okay, that might be useful in some cases. But that's not the use case that Facebook users have in mind - you're setting the bar almost comically low and the impact on the actual landscape of the web will be exactly zero. If you mean something that can make a splash in the social media sp…
You can be as skeptical as you want to be. Even assuming this idea was intended to "make a splash" (it isn't), these sort of comments make no difference whatsoever. We have all seen how HN commenters have criticised ideas that, rightly or wrongly, later went on to become successful businesses. The thing is, this is definitely not intended to be a business. It is just some software that exists and that works. If it wo…
And, secondarily to your main point, the idea that "sharing images and text with a small group of people" is some weird niche case that Facebook users don't care about is... pretty off-base. I'd say it's the main use case for the majority of Facebook users.
Re: Facebook executives shut down efforts to make the site less divisive
#689Earlier 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.
You know the worst part? I do pay for YT Premium and yet Google still finds a way to throw ads at me on Youtube videos through videos it suggests via Google Feeds (the leftmost screen on a Pixel). I bloody pay for the service and yet I am still getting ads on any youtube video I play when clicking any youtube suggested video on that feed. How annoying do you think that is? When you give in and pay, yet you are still…
I knew that google feed was advertising, any reading about google news and google feed that talks about this? I have a pixel, same findings.
Re: Facebook executives shut down efforts to make the site less divisive
#690Earlier 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 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 hu…
> Don't you want to learn about sale for new tech gadgets? Discounts for AWS? Good rent deals?
No, not at all. Ads don't just inform about deals, they also incite you to buy. I don't want to buy just because some random company got the chance to put some psychological manipulation in front of my eyeballs. If I want or need something, I will specifically seek it out. If I don't specifically seek it out, then I probably don't really need it.
If the price (heh) of that is that I miss out on some better deals for stuff that I would otherwise seek out, I'm fully happy eating that cost.