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

Controversial creators are benefiting from monetization programs run by Meta

abc.net.au

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 381 posts

Re: Controversial creators are benefiting from monetization programs run by Meta

#51

Post by vintermann »

bwb wrote: post #14

FB is built on rage bait, what else do they have beside cute videos?

I use FB for genealogy, because there are a lot of local groups where people post historical pictures, and older people in general are more active on Facebook.

I've seen some local groups taken over by ragebait slop, though. Ironically, not even right wing rage bait slop. As far as I can tell, it finally boiled over for the admin of the page, who was a fairly liberal guy in an extremely rural place, when a local museum found out he was anti-Trump and stopped collaborating with him on local history (maybe for fear of other's reactions). Since then he's strictly reposted rage material from other places/people on Facebook, much of it clearly low effort/AI generated.

I can't judge him, he lives there after all, and from this side of the ocean my political sympathies are definitively closer to him than to his enemies. Still :/

Re: Controversial creators are benefiting from monetization programs run by Meta

#52

Post by hhjinks »

pizza234 wrote: post #28
chinathrow wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not Clickbait. If you provide both: a) a service to earn money from content b) an algo promoting those videos then yes, IMHO they pay them directly for the content produced.

There is a distinction between: - Meta is commissioning or sponsoring rage-bait - Controversial creators are earning money through Facebook's content monetization program The title is ambiguous (at first, I thought it was the first case), and that's where the clickbait lies. No doubt that also the second case is a serious problem, but that's orthogonal to the ambiguity of the title.

The distinction disappears when Facebook incentivizes the creation of the rage-bait content by prioritizing it in their algorithm. They can, at any moment, de-rank rage-bait, but they don't. That clearly signals "make rage-bait for our platform and we'll pay you."

Contrast it with something like Elsagate. Google actioned the offending creators and attempted to deprioritize the kind of content that caused the controversy. Facebook would do the same if they didn't condone rage-bait.

Re: Controversial creators are benefiting from monetization programs run by Meta

#54

Post by juleiie »

juleiie wrote: post #49
Levitating wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But we don't all use Facebook, Facebook found its niche of tech-illiterate people to abuse. The population is a wide demographic and it would be nice if companies didn't try to exploit parts of it.

[flagged]

[flagged]

Re: Controversial creators are benefiting from monetization programs run by Meta

#56

Post by wizzwizz4 »

lukan wrote: post #18
graemep wrote: post #4

Ragebait is what FB runs on. A lot of these people do not even believe what they say. https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2025-11-16/kin...

Is it ethical wrong in this case, to wish those persons to get beaten up one day, by one of the people where they fueled their hate (who do take it out on other people for real)? So they reap what they sow?

Wishing for something doesn't make it happen. So we should consider the effect that this wishing has on you: does wishing for vengeance make you a worse, or better, person? I'd try to avoid it, myself.

If you're in a position where you're actually making the decision between letting these harmful practices continue, or putting a stop to them, that's different. But in this society, such people are more likely to be journalists and justices than vigilantes, so violence is still inappropriate. I think the scenario you described, of those incited to violence turning on the inciters with violence, is rather unlikely in reality, and it wouldn't necessarily be a good thing.

Re: Controversial creators are benefiting from monetization programs run by Meta

#57

Post by nixon_why69 »

leonidasrup wrote: post #48
cedws wrote: post #12

Social media platforms have been paying out for attention seeking behaviour for a long time now. It’s why every YouTube video now has the same lame shocked face, red arrows, and clickbait title. It’s why assholes film themselves intentionally pissing people off for TikTok. It’s a whole category called nuisance tubing. I remember during COVID I saw a number of YouTubers swing from producing normal content into conspir…

CCP is keeping tight control over social media platforms first and foremost to prevent spreading information which could topple CCP. "Last month 60 popular celebrity gossip sites were closed overnight for corrupting "core socialist values," and a new regulation released in May requires all online news portals to be managed by Communist Party-sanctioned editorial staff." https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-40896…

No, they actually do have a paternalistic drive to keep things healthy and pro-social above and beyond some Bond villain stuff.

I mean, yes, you also can't get away with organizing an opposition, but they really do care about social cohesion and good family values above and beyond that.

(Also, one should always note that the BBC is state owned when they write articles full of invective like this).

Re: Controversial creators are benefiting from monetization programs run by Meta

#58

Post by archerx »

Maybe they should pay their programmers to fix the audio bug in their iOS app. I can't listen to my podcasts and use the facebook app at the same time because it wants to mute the podcast to play nothing, even with the phone on silent and autoplay disabled the facebook app just randomly mutes my podcasts for no reason making me not want to use the app.

Re: Controversial creators are benefiting from monetization programs run by Meta

#59

Post by afavour »

ThunderSizzle wrote: post #19

How is this any different than traditional media? Cable news creates fake problems and controversy constantly, and pay their news anchors well to do so. In return, many companies that rely on these problems, turn around and advertise on these networks. Social media is just following the same strategy.

One big difference is regulation and algorithms. All viewers/readers see the same content in traditional media, and they’re all subject to scrutiny by government regulators (however effective or not they may be).

Social media networks display different things to different people so it’s borderline impossible to know exactly what they’re even showing. That makes regulation extremely difficult.

More broadly, this perspective depresses me. I’m old enough to remember the promise of the internet when we first all got it: that it would democratise information and we’d be able to break free of the issues with traditional media. Fast forward to today and we’re asking “why shouldn’t the tech giants monetise hate speech?”. How far we’ve fallen.

Re: Controversial creators are benefiting from monetization programs run by Meta

#60

Post by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF »

This is a really funny way to describe Facebook's (and Youtube's, and TikTok's, and...) entire business model. It's long been known that they aggressively promote ahem "engaging" content. How do they incentivize people to make it? Ad revenue!
Post reply on HN