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

321–330 of 381 posts

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

#321

Post by rightbyte »

arjie wrote: post #319
JKCalhoun wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

People always say this and so I decided to go look at my Facebook feed and it’s entirely people with their families posting completely innocuous photographs. The one exception is that Sadiq Khan the mayor of London is inexplicably on my feed eating at the restaurant Darjeeling Express. Did I follow him accidentally? Who knows. In any case, the reason I haven’t bothered is that the Facebook feed is entirely harmless.…

It is different for different users and different at different times. It is probably especially bad with few contacts that write on FB or if you log in like twice a year.

Similar confusion on HN comments about SaaS UX arise when there is AB testing and some are victims and some are not.

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

#322

Post by WorldMaker »

jklinger410 wrote: post #304
mikeocool wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, that’s good, because if you automate something then you’re automatically absolved from all responsibility for its actions. And you certainly shouldn’t bother monitoring what it’s doing.

If you want to write misleading articles to get clicks, it makes it a lot more interesting if it sounds like there's a lot of intentionality behind what META is doing. In reality META has simply not banned or restricted these accounts from monetization. That's it! But that doesn't make for an exciting headline.

That's assuming inaction doesn't have intentionality behind it. Meta has proven many times that its inaction is often intentional.

But also, maybe more importantly, as soon as money changing hands is involved, that's a business transaction and if you aren't watching like a hawk who your business transacts with, then yes that is often assumed intentional (and classically a sign of a bad business) because it shows up in your accounts and impacts your bottom line.

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

#323

Post by [deleted] »

rightbyte wrote: post #321
arjie wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People always say this and so I decided to go look at my Facebook feed and it’s entirely people with their families posting completely innocuous photographs. The one exception is that Sadiq Khan the mayor of London is inexplicably on my feed eating at the restaurant Darjeeling Express. Did I follow him accidentally? Who knows. In any case, the reason I haven’t bothered is that the Facebook feed is entirely harmless.…

It is different for different users and different at different times. It is probably especially bad with few contacts that write on FB or if you log in like twice a year. Similar confusion on HN comments about SaaS UX arise when there is AB testing and some are victims and some are not.

[deleted]

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

#324

Post by [deleted] »

jklinger410 wrote: post #304
mikeocool wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, that’s good, because if you automate something then you’re automatically absolved from all responsibility for its actions. And you certainly shouldn’t bother monitoring what it’s doing.

If you want to write misleading articles to get clicks, it makes it a lot more interesting if it sounds like there's a lot of intentionality behind what META is doing. In reality META has simply not banned or restricted these accounts from monetization. That's it! But that doesn't make for an exciting headline.

[deleted]

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

#325

Post by shimman »

inigyou wrote: post #207
AstralSerenity wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I use Instagram on Android because it's heavily modified and stripped to its bare essentials just for responding to friends. Prior to this I used the web app. If those two disappeared I would be done.

Instagram on Android was caught bypassing OS security requirements by opening a port on localhost, which webpages with Facebook tracking scripts would connect to to get your identity.

Link to this? Haven't heard of it.

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

#326

Post by windexh8er »

edgyquant wrote: post #222
windexh8er wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This type of comment is why K-12 education in the US really needs to start focusing on skills related to disinformation. The example given here is obviously an art vs disinformation/misinformation/psyops. They aren't the same and conflating them doesn't do anyone any good. Also, Meta does fund these initiatives. They choose who to give money to in these programs. You'd think that money being paid would also mean a hi…

Are you implying gangster rap wasnt cultivated and pushed to the masses by the large media companies? The only difference between then and now is the technology available and the name of the companies.

It was. But not for the reasons implied. Maybe you'd like some Flat Earth for $1000, Alex?

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

#327

Post by windexh8er »

carlosjobim wrote: post #264
windexh8er wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This type of comment is why K-12 education in the US really needs to start focusing on skills related to disinformation. The example given here is obviously an art vs disinformation/misinformation/psyops. They aren't the same and conflating them doesn't do anyone any good. Also, Meta does fund these initiatives. They choose who to give money to in these programs. You'd think that money being paid would also mean a hi…

In real life right now and for many years, we have gangster rappers (or drill or trap, whatever you'd like to call it) who are funded by record companies, broadcasted everywhere, and praised by the mainstream. Including being broadcasted and celebrated by public service stations. In their records they rap about murdering people and raping women, and also threatening to murder specific individuals or bragging about ha…

> In their records they rap about murdering people and raping women, and also threatening to murder specific individuals or bragging about having done such. Among other things.

Ahhh, yes this trope. You do understand their target market, right? There are people that grow up in unfortunate circumstances that live through those lyrics regardless of these music-led influencers you speak of. People relate to those lyrics, it's part of their world view and so, yes, they're being marketed to, quite simply.

Also, why stop here? Let's ban all books that encroach on this topic! Because we all know games, books and music yield nothing but the 80% of all the lyrics you consume. /s (<--- because who knows given the absurdity here)

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

#328

Post by acdha »

carlosjobim wrote: post #313
acdha wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Gangster rap has inspired a lot of murders and other violent crime world wide, I don't think anybody would deny that anymore Citation needed here. I haven’t known anyone to do that despite it being pretty mainstream and U.S. crime rates have been going down for ages so there doesn’t appear to be a general correlation (repeat for the video games which have been so railed against). I think most people understand the…

If you truly deny the effect that gangster rap has, then I can't take your comment as honest. Then we might just as well say that ISIS propaganda also has no effect on their targeted audience, and their stuff is just for entertainment. Because what "citations" do you have that people can be influenced by ISIS propaganda. When a drill rapper makes a song threatening to murder specific people, and also posts these thre…

> If you truly deny the effect that gangster rap has, then I can't take your comment as honest

I’m not denying anything, I’m asking you to support your claim. In particular, if an entire genre loved by millions of people causes this problem, why do we not see it very commonly or with such variability across countries? How can we say the problem is the music rather than other things going on in those people’s lives which are more unique to their experience than a musical genre?

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

#329

Post by acdha »

asdf88990 wrote: post #164
acdha wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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/…

It’s complicated, yes, but my point is essentially just that someone saying “ are stealing our country! Force them out!” is specifically calling for violence directed against that group in a way that, say, a movie full of mayhem probably isn’t. That’s because, say, Paramount has editorial control and will never greenlight anything close to what many Facebook / X accounts with hundreds of thousands of followers say every day.

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

#330

Post by Henchman21 »

Bluestein wrote: post #227
mrguyorama wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People educated in math and probability are actually still prone to gambling addiction and things. It doesn't matter what your high level brain knows, there is a structure and organization of your brain that only changes on geologic timescales, and that structure has serious, easily attackable flaws.

I like your use of "attackable" (and of flaws, obviously).- PS. F'book commoditized social interaction to their ends while abusing these attackable surfaces. Kalshi and that ilk have now done away with the whole pretense of communication itself and are abusing the same addiction mechanisms to commoditize OPINION to their ends. Opinions: Everybody has one.- PS. At some point somebody is going to commoditize mere bodil…

Nobody expects… the Ministry of Silly Walks?
Post reply on HN