Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Facebook tried to make its platform a healthier place, but it got angrier

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 187 posts

Re: Facebook tried to make its platform a healthier place, but it got angrier

#11

Post by krn1p4n1c »

mzkply wrote: post #6
maxfurman wrote: post #3

> Data scientists on that integrity team—whose job is to improve the quality and trustworthiness of content on the platform—worked on a number of potential changes to curb the tendency of the overhauled algorithm to reward outrage and lies. Mr. Zuckerberg resisted some of the proposed fixes, the documents show, because he was worried they might hurt the company’s other objective—making users engage more with Facebook…

Am I in the super-minority if I say I've unfollowed about 80% of my FB friends? I've never seen a political or outrage post in the last 3 years since I just unfollowed everyone but my closest friends and family.

I did this as well and FB has been fine for me.

Same thing as in real life, don't willingly subject yourself to toxic people.

Re: Facebook tried to make its platform a healthier place, but it got angrier

#12

Post by dtech »

badRNG wrote: post #7
warning26 wrote: post #4

It all comes down to every PM's favorite metric: engagement . When users get into a heated flamewar, that's high-engagement. So you want to do everything you can to ensure that the most possible users get sucked into flamewars. I feel like this should be banned, but it's unclear what the best approach would be. Mandating chronological feed order?

Don't the constant flamewars push people away from Facebook, thereby reducing engagement in the long run? I quit Facebook several years ago because I honestly just didn't like the experience. It was miserable and I didn't enjoy going to it any longer. I have the phone numbers of my closest friends and family, why wouldn't I just call or text when I want to talk to them?

Apparently most people don't work that way. Or at least it drives up engagement up until a person-specific breaking point.

Re: Facebook tried to make its platform a healthier place, but it got angrier

#13

Post by JasonFruit »

warning26 wrote: post #4

It all comes down to every PM's favorite metric: engagement . When users get into a heated flamewar, that's high-engagement. So you want to do everything you can to ensure that the most possible users get sucked into flamewars. I feel like this should be banned, but it's unclear what the best approach would be. Mandating chronological feed order?

MeWe has chronological feed order, and I've found fewer flame wars there. The user base is smaller and possibly more ideologically uniform, though, which may be an alternate explanation.

Re: Facebook tried to make its platform a healthier place, but it got angrier

#14

Post by VortexDream »

mzkply wrote: post #6
maxfurman wrote: post #3

> Data scientists on that integrity team—whose job is to improve the quality and trustworthiness of content on the platform—worked on a number of potential changes to curb the tendency of the overhauled algorithm to reward outrage and lies. Mr. Zuckerberg resisted some of the proposed fixes, the documents show, because he was worried they might hurt the company’s other objective—making users engage more with Facebook…

Am I in the super-minority if I say I've unfollowed about 80% of my FB friends? I've never seen a political or outrage post in the last 3 years since I just unfollowed everyone but my closest friends and family.

I unfollowed everybody, joined a bunch of local special interest groups and met a ton of new people who lived in the same city. Facebook is actually an incredible tool to connect with other people.

But the more I saw how FB behaved, the less I wanted to be involved in any way with their business. I ended up deleting my FB account, which even now 3 years later I feel was a huge loss for me. But I just can't do FB anymore knowing how they're driving outrage and political/societal issues in the name of "user engagement".

I wish there were some alternative, but there isn't. It genuinely feels like I've cut myself off from modern city life without it and it frustrates me so much.

Re: Facebook tried to make its platform a healthier place, but it got angrier

#15

Post by wombat-man »

mzkply wrote: post #6
maxfurman wrote: post #3

> Data scientists on that integrity team—whose job is to improve the quality and trustworthiness of content on the platform—worked on a number of potential changes to curb the tendency of the overhauled algorithm to reward outrage and lies. Mr. Zuckerberg resisted some of the proposed fixes, the documents show, because he was worried they might hurt the company’s other objective—making users engage more with Facebook…

Am I in the super-minority if I say I've unfollowed about 80% of my FB friends? I've never seen a political or outrage post in the last 3 years since I just unfollowed everyone but my closest friends and family.

yeah I unfollow people who moan about politics and stuff constantly. I am here for the life updates and the vacation photos thank you!

Re: Facebook tried to make its platform a healthier place, but it got angrier

#16

Post by strict9 »

>Company researchers discovered that publishers and political parties were reorienting their posts toward outrage and sensationalism. That tactic produced high levels of comments and reactions that translated into success on Facebook.

This is why The Daily Wire and other such outrage aggregators are consistently on Facebook's Top 10.

Not coincidentally, it's also been the source of fuel for the anti-vaccine movement that is resulting in overflowing ICUs and well over a thousand deaths per day.

Masks, social distancing, vaccines--are a political issue and FB's feed that prioritizes "engagement" (or enragement) causes false medical information to float to the top and get the most comments/shares.

FB got more engagement but in the process became the main outlet for medical misinformation.

Re: Facebook tried to make its platform a healthier place, but it got angrier

#18

Post by badRNG »

dtech wrote: post #12
badRNG wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't the constant flamewars push people away from Facebook, thereby reducing engagement in the long run? I quit Facebook several years ago because I honestly just didn't like the experience. It was miserable and I didn't enjoy going to it any longer. I have the phone numbers of my closest friends and family, why wouldn't I just call or text when I want to talk to them?

Apparently most people don't work that way. Or at least it drives up engagement up until a person-specific breaking point.

Anecdotally, I've known several folks who've left Facebook for one reason or another, often at least in part because of the poor experience they had on the platform.

> Or at least it drives up engagement up until a person-specific breaking point.

Surely as this plays out, Facebook will see it's userbase fall out at some point...

Re: Facebook tried to make its platform a healthier place, but it got angrier

#20

Post by wheybags »

mrweasel wrote: post #10

One reason why Facebook keeps failing in increasing "meaningful social interaction" could be because they at the same time tries to sell ads. It seems like it would be easy to simply exclude "reshares" from users news feed. They could try to: "Sort by date" and "only posts posted/shared by my friend directly". Personally I think that would remove much of the toxicity. Secondly, simply ban news sites from the platform…

While I'm sure there are some people at fb genuinely trying to "fix" toxicity, overall the issue is that they're not trying to fix it. They want to do the minimum possible to protect their image / bottom line, they don't care if it actually works. Actually fixing toxicity is one way to improve their image, but appearing to try can be good enough.
Post reply on HN