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

161–170 of 381 posts

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

#161

Post by jnovek »

carlosjobim wrote: post #143
wpietri wrote: post #55

> "it is not Meta's role to police offensiveness" Just to fund, transmit, amplify, protect, and profit from it.

[flagged]

Literally the second paragraph in the article:

“An ABC NEWS Verify investigation into several controversial Australian pages on Facebook has found that some are benefiting directly from social media monetisation programs run by Meta.”

They are paying him for his content. Funding him, if you will.

Virtually every company pays people to do stuff and then profits off of the stuff those people do.

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

#162

Post by ImPostingOnHN »

carlosjobim wrote: post #143
wpietri wrote: post #55

> "it is not Meta's role to police offensiveness" Just to fund, transmit, amplify, protect, and profit from it.

[flagged]

> Meta doesn't fund the stuff people put there

Actually, the article makes it pretty clear that they fund some of the really bad stuff.

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

#163

Post by neutronicus »

rubyfan wrote: post #74

Why anyone still engages with these platforms is totally beyond me. They are bad for your soul, bad for the nation, bad for the world.

If you want to "make it" as an artist / restaurateur / musician / million other things you kind of have to.

Hell, the most reliable communication channel for getting information from my kid's school is Instagram.

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

#164

Post by asdf88990 »

acdha wrote: post #157
carlosjobim wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

There’s a big difference between fiction when the viewer knows it’s make believe and when it’s presented as factual. Nobody is committing genocide because they saw a violent movie whereas Facebook shares responsibility for at least one recognized genocide and a number of smaller scale events where the company amplified hateful content and was very slow to take it down. A key distinction here is choice: I don’t accide…

> There’s a big difference between fiction when the viewer knows it’s make believe and when it’s presented as factual.

The difference is far more nuanced and borders on inconsequential when it comes to mass media influence on society.

Just because something is presented as fiction or for entertainment doesn’t mean it doesn’t impact your psyche or your perception of the world and others.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_influence_on_public_opinio...

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

#165

Post by neutronicus »

carlosjobim wrote: post #146
rubyfan wrote: post #74

Why anyone still engages with these platforms is totally beyond me. They are bad for your soul, bad for the nation, bad for the world.

I'll help you understand: Important information is many times only found on these platforms. Many local businesses and events only have their info on Facebook or Instagram. Many local community groups are only on Facebook, and you'll find information there that has a real impact on your life (like bus broke down). The other part is messaging. In parts of Europe nobody uses WhatsApp or SMS to communicate, everybody is…

Yeah, Instagram is by far the most reliable communications channel from my kid's school, believe it or not. Like, there are mailing lists and portals you can log into, but the IT aspect of actually getting access for even one parent, let alone both, is such a fucking slog for everyone involved (and who knows what bullshit the school has to deal with from their side) that we get info through our WhatsApp group chat from the parents who have Instagram.

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

#166

Post by jasonjayr »

JKCalhoun wrote: post #148
Bluestein wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I may offer: Because they have become fiendishly adept at exploiting an addictive behaviour/weakness in our brains WHILE masquerading as some sort of social utility (AND perhaps vestigially retaining some semblance of that) - which, incidentally, is what (some) originally might have been, before encrappification.-

I suspect the OP understands this. Since few of those on HN (I am assuming) no longer have a FB presence, the question is why hasn't everyone arrived at this same conclusion and walked away from that addiction? Meta should really have gone the way of MySpace a long, long time ago.

Breaking any type of addiction is hard. For some people it requires intentional and deliberate help from others.

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

#167

Post by Bluestein »

JKCalhoun wrote: post #148
Bluestein wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I may offer: Because they have become fiendishly adept at exploiting an addictive behaviour/weakness in our brains WHILE masquerading as some sort of social utility (AND perhaps vestigially retaining some semblance of that) - which, incidentally, is what (some) originally might have been, before encrappification.-

I suspect the OP understands this. Since few of those on HN (I am assuming) no longer have a FB presence, the question is why hasn't everyone arrived at this same conclusion and walked away from that addiction? Meta should really have gone the way of MySpace a long, long time ago.

And/or MySpace should have gone the way of F'book :)

Though I hear it might make a comeback.-

PS. To your point, I am guessing: For one thing it takes the ability to thus conclude, to begin with. THAT, in turn takes intellect and time AND evidence such as has been accruing. AND third, probably, because addictions are by definition hard to quit. ALSO: I think few times in the history of addictive behaviours has the enabling agent had such a low low low entry threshold, such presumptive innocuousness, and such assumed and granted "utility". It began by hijacking human communication, "socialization". It is devious.-

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

#168

Post by Starman_Jones »

jklinger410 wrote: post #153
mikeocool wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> appear to be profiting from is "an invitation-only programme that lets you earn money from the performance of your eligible public reels, photos, stories and text posts." The difference between “We ask white nationalists to join our invite only pay-for-views program” and “we commission white nationalists to make content” kinda seems like splitting hairs.

The invitation is automated

Did Meta set up the selection criteria for the automated selection system?

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

#169

Post by asdvsadnvs »

phatfish wrote: post #125
wpietri wrote: post #55

> "it is not Meta's role to police offensiveness" Just to fund, transmit, amplify, protect, and profit from it.

Zuck was gagging for the Trump 2nd term so he could go all in on this shit. Slow clap for the Meta employees that enable it.

[flagged]
Post reply on HN