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

131–140 of 187 posts

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

#131

Post by tharne »

Invictus0 wrote: post #42
zelphirkalt wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is supposed to make you feel that way. That is on FB's agenda to achieve, in order to bind you to their (dis-)services. Real friends will not require you to use FB and sacrifice your privacy to communicate with them. You might feel a loss, but there are alternative ways of communicating. Get as many friends as possible over to messengers, which are not owned by FB. Give people a call every now and then. Write them…

People still use FB marketplace and events. If you can't be reached on events, many times you simply won't be invited.

Some of us see this as a feature and not a bug :)

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

#132

Post by tharne »

smoldesu wrote: post #87
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…

Is this any more helpful than saying "throw away your iPhone" or "uninstall Windows"? For the record, I fully agree that Facebook is poisoned, but frankly this is true of any company with a board of shareholders. The vast majority of people just don't care, like how we failed to get America to care about recycling. Habits, vices and consumerism are what drive this machine, even the VC one that funds the very website…

> Is this any more helpful than saying "throw away your iPhone" or "uninstall Windows"?

I've done both those things, and am happier for it. So yes, I would argue that it's helpful to advise people to cut junk out of their lives.

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

#133

Post by randcraw »

golemotron wrote: post #121

People communicate to say things that they think are important. We should not be surprised when a medium that allows more broadcast-level communication becomes dominated by those things rather than "how was your day?" Ads are a canard. The earliest non-ad-driven social networks: USENET, mailing lists etc, had the same problems.

USENET had an entirely different set of users than today's anonymous trolls, which minimized flame-fests. Sure, disagreement drove much conversation on the groups, but it was generally topic-driven and constructive, targeting ideas much more than people. Vitriol back then was the exception rather than the rule. Those groups (aside from alt.*) where denizens crossed the line often added moderation, which usually tamped down the flames.

No, I think things are MUCH worse now than USENET ever was.

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

#134

Post by hinkley »

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?

PMs who think like this are the kids who stand around two kids about to fight, egging them on.

These are not your friends. These are not good people.

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

#135

Post by hinkley »

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?

'The long run' looks like it's going to play out over three generations, not unlike Big Tobacco.

Not only can you get rich in that sort of time frame, you can retire and let your kids take over. The grandkids will be proper monsters who don't work at all, so they will probably cash out before the lawsuits get teeth.

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

#136

Post by BoxOfRain »

mhh__ wrote: post #74
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…

The only time I ever have meaningful interactions on Facebook is in niche groups like meme groups with a few thousand people. Every single one gets banned eventually. My favourite Top Gear meme group has been through I think 6 groups now. Facebooks potential to destroy culture if they throw a hissy fit is dangerous and not being paid attention to.

>My favourite Top Gear meme group has been through I think 6 groups now.

I think I know the one you mean, that group's been through quite a few "Zuckings".

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

#137

Post by owl_troupe »

streamofdigits wrote: post #82

Good luck supporting a $trillion valuation on the basis of a "healthier place". The business of social media platforms is to maximize profit by monetizing their user base. Friedman instructed MBA students that they must pursue this diligently, using any and all legal tricks in the book. Yes sure, as good managers they need to protect long-term shareholder value. They should, in general, want to strike the right balan…

> start worrying about more serious problems

I completely agree with your sentiment, but what societal problem isn't currently being made worse by political polarization and misinformation on Facebook?

Take your pick: genocide[1], climate change denialism[2], anti-democratic efforts[3], public health misinformation [4], just to name a few.

[1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-myanmar-rohingya-facebook...

[2] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/oct/08/climate-...

[3] https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2021/06/faceb...

[4] https://www.fastcompany.com/90657622/as-the-delta-variant-sp...

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

#138

Post by marttt »

somedude895 wrote: post #76
elliekelly wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think another factor is that they’re trying to quickly turn a massive ship that has, for years, self-selected users intent on heading in the direction of outrage and toxicity. The people who are the most “engaged” with the platform are the people who get a dopamine rush from arguing and baiting and instigating. The nice people who just want to see what their friends are up to have either left or significantly scale…

Anecdotally this is what I've been seeing over the years. Most of my friends and acquaintances seem to have left Facebook behind and moved to Insta. The people that stayed on FB are mostly those who like to express strong opinions and engage in pointless discussions.

Living in a country of 1.5 million people, it often feels devastating how big a part of political/intellectual discussion in our (tiny) language actually takes place in Facebook. I have worked in journalism, so maybe it's sour grapes in a way, but: most of the great writers are there. All the politicians are there. Our prime minister first announces crucial things on her FB wall, etc.

In short, if you want to participate in the public sphere of our tiny society that yet speaks its own tiny language, you'd better have a FB account. The account provided by an American Megacorp, that is. This actually feels really strange.

I've been more or less off FB for 5-6 years, occasionally feeling lonely and intellectually isolated. I would love to see things like the Fediverse/Mastodon or tilde.town take off for speakers of our language, but I'm having doubts whether this could ever happen.

For the lingua francas, there will always be a considerable chunk of alternative culture and great, bright discussion outside dominant platforms (howdy, HN!). For smaller cultures, this relationship status is surely complicated. FB is just so damn big.

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

#139

Post by Foomf »

foofoo4u wrote: post #94
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…

Yup, which points out the fundamental problem: Facebook is a product of its incentives. Its incentive is to maximize engagement. Why? Because more engagement equates to more ad revenue. The externalities of this behavior do not align with what society seeks. Therefore, if we wish to fundamentally transform Facebook, then we must change the incentives. The incentives are not going to change on their own. Enough time h…

Couldn't a company outside the US just set up a free Facebook competitor then?

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

#140

Post by BoxOfRain »

jimt1234 wrote: post #27
MattGaiser wrote: post #22

Part of the problem is a lot of people enjoy the anger.

This ^^^!!! People are, or can be, total garbage, especially when they're behind a keyboard and not face-to-face.

I can absolutely confirm this, I fell down an unfortunate rabbit hole of posting about politics on Reddit (fairly mainstream politics, but politics nonetheless). There's nothing quite like the dopamine rush of righteous anger, and mixing that with the disinhibition of just being another pseudonym it's quite easy to understand why "enrangement is engagement" is such a powerful and insideous tool to drive people's use of social media. I was a shitehawk and I'm not afraid to admit it.

I'd never advocate something as obviously ridiculous as requiring ID to post on social media or the other sort of rubbish people outside of the tech industry come up with to deal with this problem, though I'd also point out that quitting Reddit did wonders for my mental health and generally made me less of an arse. Facebook strikes me as even worse, even more tuned towards pissing you off and preying on that human need to have the last word.

Post reply on HN