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

711–720 of 1001 posts

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

#711

Post by metrokoi »

throwlaplace wrote: post #640
all-fakes wrote: post #632

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Responses have to be ranked, because some comments are much more valuable to the reader than others. Well-thought-out comments and spam lie at the extreme ends of the spectrum. I think there's merit to the idea of requiring a response for upvotes or downvotes, but how can you tell whether a response is "genuine"? It sounds like it'd devolve into people leaving vacuous replies just to clear that prerequisite.

>comments are much more valuable to the reader than others This presupposes some kind of universal value function. >but how can you tell whether a response is "genuine"? It sounds like it'd devolve into people leaving vacuous replies just to clear that prerequisite This is like perfect is the enemy of good counterargument. I don't know and I'm not going to hypothesize right here right now where one misstep on my part…

Academic journals have a barrier to entry and the content is already judged, the journals decide what information they publish. It is not a random collection of every single article submitted, so you are already starting out with above-average content.

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

#712

Post by vinniejames »

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…

According to this research, it isn't even good content. It's divisive content intended to force you to pick a "side" then fight for it

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

#713

Post by DanHulton »

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…

This feels like saying "the fundamental flaw about email spam blocking is won't somebody think of the spammers?"

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

#714

Post by stonogo »

solveit wrote: post #697
stonogo wrote: post #687

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The point is that fighting Facebook on Facebook is a losing game and "innovate a better business model" has been tried, is being tried, and is not working because it is hard . A plan that does not work is indeed "flawed", no matter how noble and natural the intentions.

"Users don't care about your ad network" is not a "plan," it is a reality, and calling it "flawed" is just corporate propaganda. I'm sure you're arguing in good faith but the very foundation of this assessment is fundamentally incompatible with reality.

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

#715

Post by prawn »

knzhou wrote: post #532
DenisM wrote: post #525

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 b…

For 15+ years, I've run a sports forum and it is inevitable that societal/political debates emerge in many threads. In recent years, they've become increasingly as you describe. There's almost never a calm, reasonable comment. People get at each other's throats and slinging left-right insults immediately.

I think a lot about how @PG almost never posts on HN any more. Might be wrong, but I suspect he's come to resent some of the discourse/attitudes and time-wasting here.

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

#716

Post by throwaway2048 »

themacguffinman wrote: post #644
pessimizer wrote: post #587

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Facebook's purpose of existence isn't for somebody to "pay for it".

Facebook's purpose of existence is to make money.

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

#717

Post by bobthepanda »

stonogo wrote: post #714
solveit wrote: post #697

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is that fighting Facebook on Facebook is a losing game and "innovate a better business model" has been tried, is being tried, and is not working because it is hard . A plan that does not work is indeed "flawed", no matter how noble and natural the intentions.

"Users don't care about your ad network" is not a "plan," it is a reality, and calling it "flawed" is just corporate propaganda. I'm sure you're arguing in good faith but the very foundation of this assessment is fundamentally incompatible with reality.

Well, no, today's model is "users tolerate your ad network in return for free content". Which is clearly true given that Facebook is making profits despite everyone and their mother grumbling about ads.

Something has to pay the bills.

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

#718

Post by joejerryronnie »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #608
joejerryronnie wrote: post #530

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would a personal AI which curates your content be any “better” than FB’s AI which curates your content? Isn’t the current AI based on what you end up engaging with anyway? If you naturally engage in a variety of content across all ideological spectrums, than that’s what the FB AI is going to predict for you. Unfortunately, the vast majority of us engage with content which reinforces our existing worldview - which…

Because an algorithm under your control can be tweaked by you. Could be as simple as reordering topics on a list of preferences. Facebook's algorithm can't be controlled like that. Also, an algorithm you own won't change itself unbeknownst to you.

Sure, but I bet 99.9% of the people will not tweak their personal algorithm and will end up with the same result as FB.

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

#719

Post by coffeecat »

stonogo wrote: post #687
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…

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…

It appears to me that the parent post was criticizing the ad-based business model - not endorsing it.

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

#720

Post by stonogo »

bobthepanda wrote: post #717
stonogo wrote: post #714

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Users don't care about your ad network" is not a "plan," it is a reality, and calling it "flawed" is just corporate propaganda. I'm sure you're arguing in good faith but the very foundation of this assessment is fundamentally incompatible with reality.

Well, no, today's model is "users tolerate your ad network in return for free content". Which is clearly true given that Facebook is making profits despite everyone and their mother grumbling about ads. Something has to pay the bills.

Yes, tolerating the ad network definitely falls under "users don't care"... until they do, and they start taking measures to counteract it, and then we're back to "something has to pay the bills," which is where I'm suggesting some R&D investment might be wise.
Post reply on HN