331–340 of 381 posts
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.
[flagged]
not all israeli settlers are terrorists of course, but unlike me, who's living on the land by treaty, theyre living on land obtained through terrorism and war crimes.
not all settlers are equivalent
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.
they have a system where they accept all content, but pay double(or whatever extra the algorithm prioritization creates) for controversial content
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.…
the fundamental issue is that the user has no actual control over what ends up on the feed, and everyone's experience is based on what facebook decides you should see.
i manipulated mine to show only leatherwork, but it'll never ever show me stuff from my friends. instead of showing me what my friends are up to - deletig any likes and telling it to never show me suggested junk - it shows an error for "add more friends" rather than show content from my friends which they definitely do have.
i get the sense that facebook has marked my friends as not worth having their posts seen, so it cant add their stuff to my feed even when i dont have anything else on my feed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a US citizen who takes our country’s free speech norms seriously, I don’t think Meta should be aiming to deplatform even the hateful content I vehemently disagree with. I think government should work more on helping people find alternatives to social media. The “town square effect” that makes people feel forced to use these apps is real and pernicious. That feels like a better target for regulation and taxation th…
Business is not bound to any sort of freedom of speech. There is no such thing, it does not exist. The first amendment covers government actions only. If I owned a social media network, I wouldn’t let Nazis, MLM peddlers, transphobes, pro-gun advocates, or anti-vaxxers, among others, on my network. That’s where my moral compass lies. Now, you might say that’s unfair, that’s not an open forum. I’m not being open-minde…
He is saying that the US has free speech norms (not laws) where it is acceptable for people to get together and rant about X, Y, or Z. There are limits (e.g. calls for violence), but they are few. Anyone who does not like the speech can leave the room, try to argue with the speaker, or make their own speech in another room. It is not the social norm to shut down the speaker, make the speaker unemployable, trash or bankrupt the venue, etc. Those actions are contrary to the norm.
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.
Facebook is still big in my country, Lithuania, and both rage-bait and other type of fringe content is rampant, and even worse after fact-checking was removed. It is wild, and with some outside actors (specific country that shall not be named) it is a big problem with political and social effects being felt IRL.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is correct, it's monetisation, not commissioning. Facebook isn't paying to produce. It's paying for driving views and clicks on ads, regardless of how. It's like if I hire a taxi driver to come to my house and drive me to the airport, and the taxi driver happens to run over a person in the process. It would be ridiculous to write 'he hired a driver to run over a person with a car'. However, this also doesn't ful…
As a US citizen who takes our country’s free speech norms seriously, I don’t think Meta should be aiming to deplatform even the hateful content I vehemently disagree with. I think government should work more on helping people find alternatives to social media. The “town square effect” that makes people feel forced to use these apps is real and pernicious. That feels like a better target for regulation and taxation th…