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

271–280 of 381 posts

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

#271

Post by iamnothere »

Bluestein wrote: post #110
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 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.-

Most people that I know who use it basically only use it for Marketplace and one or two groups. (It would be better to not use it at all, but that seems fine.) Someone showed me their feed and it’s all slop, worse than Twitter.

Many people understand that it’s a waste of time, but people with low impulse control get sucked in. Same as with gambling and Candy Crush style games. And substances, for that matter. This isn’t their fault, some people are wired that way.

We really need a revival of Craigslist to eliminate the Marketplace hold on local P2P commerce.

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

#272

Post by JohnFen »

acdha wrote: post #205
exhumet wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

thats exactly what i was telling my wife, a casino is way more accurate than what i said. i was like it felt like signing on to Temu with all of the shit all over the place

I remember going to Las Vegas once after I turned 21, realizing that it totally wasn’t my thing, and especially being scared by the expressions on the zombie seniors sitting in front of the slot machines shoveling quarters in. I see that basically every day now with people watching TikTok or Instagram while walking, on the bus, or even driving, barely able to tear their attention away. It’s like a casino except that…

> especially being scared by the expressions on the zombie seniors sitting in front of the slot machines shoveling quarters in.

It's not just seniors.

I used to date a woman who worked as a cocktail waitress on the floor of a major casino on the strip. She referred to the people at the slots as "trained monkeys".

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

#273

Post by consensus1 »

mattlondon wrote: post #63

I think this is a bit misleading. It sounds to me like the creators are creating and uploading the content, and then that is getting monetised on the platform? The title makes it sound like meta is commissioning the content? I don't think that is the case here? Or is it? Directly commissioning someone to create it is pretty wild.

Yes. This article is just rage bait designed to rile up the type of people that want the government to restrict freedom of speech on social media.

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

#274

Post by consensus1 »

mikeocool wrote: post #75
mattlondon wrote: post #63

I think this is a bit misleading. It sounds to me like the creators are creating and uploading the content, and then that is getting monetised on the platform? The title makes it sound like meta is commissioning the content? I don't think that is the case here? Or is it? Directly commissioning someone to create it is pretty wild.

> 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.

No, it's "We invite popular content creators without regard to their political views."

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

#275

Post by AlexandrB »

wpietri wrote: post #226
beezlewax wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> do you expect everyone to agree with your moral code and quit their job Yes. This would be ideal.

And second best would be these people owning their moral vacuity. I can sort of respect a response like, "Yeah, I like Zuckerberg's money and I don't give a shit about the harm I'm enabling. I'll keep cashing my checks and being an asshole." It's the people who expect us to pretend they're not asshole that get to me. They want the upside of bad behavior without the downside. Sorry bub, FAFO.

> And second best would be these people owning their moral vacuity.

So anyone who does not agree with you is morally vacuous? Very convenient. Prevents you from ever having to question your own morality.

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

#276

Post by haunter »

tomaytotomato wrote: post #215

I would drop Facebook in a heartbeat but Facebook Marketplace is a strong pull for getting bargains in my local area. I have alternatives like eBay and Gumtree but they have their own shortcomings. Examples from Facebook: - Antique lumber planks 50p a plank - 4 sticks of DDR4 16GB SODIMMs, £60 - Garden tools, £10 This stuff would be slower and more expensive on eBay, and Gumtree is more of a waiting game as its userb…

For some reason I always get insane deals locally on Marketplace. Bought a brand new 3DS with 4 games this weekend 5 kms away from me for ~50€. People would sell this for 200€ on eBay.

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

#277

Post by consensus1 »

mrguyorama wrote: post #211
mattlondon wrote: post #63

I think this is a bit misleading. It sounds to me like the creators are creating and uploading the content, and then that is getting monetised on the platform? The title makes it sound like meta is commissioning the content? I don't think that is the case here? Or is it? Directly commissioning someone to create it is pretty wild.

No, Meta intentionally set up the incentive structure to reward rage bait content. You should expect they knew what they were going to get from doing that. You don't get to be Meta's size and have Meta's experience with systems engineering and research on their own platform's incentives and outcomes, and not know exactly how this will go.

So does ABC, which is why we are all commenting on their article here.

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

#278

Post by stevenwoo »

florkbork wrote: post #6

I will call out the ABC here for taking a lot of the boots on the ground work that Tom Tanuki - independent journo ( https://youtube.com/@tomtanuki ) has done with these far right slopaganda mills, slicing off the prior recognition and pretending it's a big new problem they just found. While a bit of this is new... Is it that new? Is this report that detailed? Hmmmmm

Last Week Tonight has also done multiple bits on this topic over the years, with one during the current season with list of prior offenses.

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

#279

Post by cube00 »

code_duck wrote: post #17
bwb wrote: post #14

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

Horrible sympathy and religion bait like "I bet nobody will upvote this poor sick child with one leg, won't you? 1 amen = 1 prayer!"

The algorithms do love a loneliness influencer https://www.theguardian.com/society/2026/jun/08/loneliness-i...

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

#280

Post by stephenhuey »

Bluestein wrote: post #110
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 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.-

As many have pointed out, a lot of daily community activities are conducted primarily through Meta-owned platforms. Quite annoying, but maybe there wasn't enough effort earlier to get all these schools and other community groups using other tools to get the word out?

However, companies could en masse decide to start filtering resumes containing Meta employment history. This already happens with some other questionable industries when reviewing applications. I know I'd be hard pressed to hire anyone with a Meta background.

Post reply on HN