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

Meta's blockbuster trial draws parallels to big tobacco

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 323 posts

Re: Meta's blockbuster trial draws parallels to big tobacco

#141

Post by notsirius »

throwyawayyyy wrote: post #74

I do wonder about intent. Meta has spent 20 years paying its engineers and others vast amounts of money to Increase Engagement, and punishes those who fail to find ways to do so (over the past few years, by firing them). And it's worked! Engagement has increased greatly over the years, Meta survived the effective end of Old social media (you know, the stuff from your friends) and thrives in the new world of infinite…

have worked in analytics for a while. Engagement is a very broad category. Not all engagement metrics are toxic. For example, daily active users is healthy for a business to measure and is engagement. Commenting on Hackernews is engagement. Meta also has a wide range of engagement metrics - not all of which are problematic

Re: Meta's blockbuster trial draws parallels to big tobacco

#142

Post by philipallstar »

ricardobayes wrote: post #122
Aurornis wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This would include everything from my Spotify recommending new music that I like to my Netflix showing me similar shows. I'm a responsible adult. I want those things. I make use of them. They make my life better when I'm trying to listen to some music while I work on something or when I have exactly 2 hours of TV watching time in a week and don't want to waste it finding a new show. I do not want regulations coming a…

Yes, anyone who has been looking for Spotify alternatives can readily tell how poor the music recommendation algorithms of competitors. I feel like the only comparative one is weirdly, youtube, since they simply have more data points and context to attach recommendations to.

And that ability to recommend what you want is the harm being decided.

Re: Meta's blockbuster trial draws parallels to big tobacco

#143

Post by philipallstar »

Aurornis wrote: post #134
friendzis wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> > “Do you use personal / behavioral data / usage to shape the user experience and recommendations, creating a reinforcing loop?” > This would include everything from my Spotify recommending new music that I like to my Netflix showing me similar shows. Spotify recommending music and Netflix recommending shows that are similar to what? To previously recommended music/shows. This is exactly the problem. > I'm a respon…

> This is exactly the problem. What problem, exactly? Helping me find new music to enjoy? I’m beginning to think some people have forgotten what we’re supposed to be angry about and now we’re just angry at all things tech. Spotify recommending new music to me or continuing to play music suggestions when my playlist runs out is in no way harmful. It improves my life. I lose nothing to it. I gain new exposure to music.…

Yes. It's like the prohibitionists. They couldn't see any problem that couldn't be solved by banning alcohol.

Re: Meta's blockbuster trial draws parallels to big tobacco

#144

Post by vanderZwan »

notsirius wrote: post #141
throwyawayyyy wrote: post #74

I do wonder about intent. Meta has spent 20 years paying its engineers and others vast amounts of money to Increase Engagement, and punishes those who fail to find ways to do so (over the past few years, by firing them). And it's worked! Engagement has increased greatly over the years, Meta survived the effective end of Old social media (you know, the stuff from your friends) and thrives in the new world of infinite…

have worked in analytics for a while. Engagement is a very broad category. Not all engagement metrics are toxic. For example, daily active users is healthy for a business to measure and is engagement. Commenting on Hackernews is engagement. Meta also has a wide range of engagement metrics - not all of which are problematic

I've never seen a NAXALT fallacy used for the concept of engagement metrics before.

It's not relevant to this discussion that in certain contexts, useful engagement metrics exist that supposedly aren't toxic, because it doesnt apply to the current context. We're clearly talking about the larger systemic issue of companies maximizing all engagement at all costs, and the consequences of such a policy.

Re: Meta's blockbuster trial draws parallels to big tobacco

#145

Post by realnkb »

throwyawayyyy wrote: post #74

I do wonder about intent. Meta has spent 20 years paying its engineers and others vast amounts of money to Increase Engagement, and punishes those who fail to find ways to do so (over the past few years, by firing them). And it's worked! Engagement has increased greatly over the years, Meta survived the effective end of Old social media (you know, the stuff from your friends) and thrives in the new world of infinite…

There was a moment in time when Instagram use to show this disclaimer "You're all caught up with the posts". You could still scroll below that and it would show you algorithmic content as it always have if you choose to view it. However I don't see this feature anymore and it's gotten worse with pure infinite slop. I really appreciated that cause every time I opened the app, saw that disclaimer I would instantly close it and go about doing other things. I wish they just kept simple stuff like that around but I guess that doesn't help their metrics.

Re: Meta's blockbuster trial draws parallels to big tobacco

#146

Post by hgomersall »

vasco wrote: post #132
danielmarkbruce wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's actually somewhat easy... If you are creating financial exposure to an event with no underlying risk to it, and the point is exposure itself, you are gambling. In your snow example, those guys were gambling on snow for fun. The formal weather derivative - most weather derivatives have parties (usually players in the energy market, sometimes agriculture) who have real underlying risk and aren't entering those con…

Having "underlying risk" to something just means you invested in it before. So for you it's not a gambling as long as you... have gambled before in the other direction? Buy bunch of call options? Gambling. Buy a bunch of put options for stock I already hold, somehow honorable investing.

It's all gambling. You can dress it to as having a social purpose, but that's not why most people do it - they want the numbers to go up. The stock market is exactly the same - middle class gambling.

Re: Meta's blockbuster trial draws parallels to big tobacco

#147

Post by arxari »

dumberquestions wrote: post #90
itake wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How? The 2 feeds on my IG account: "posts" and "reels" show content of people that I do not follow.

Instagram definitely doesn't have the option but youtube for instance does, there's a subscription tab that's collecting dust in most people's accounts.

NewPipe even has the subscription feed pretty centered

Re: Meta's blockbuster trial draws parallels to big tobacco

#148

Post by rglullis »

pants2 wrote: post #116
wpietri wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It took decades to clearly define gambling enough to regulate it as we do now. Note that pinball was banned in major cities for decades because it was too similar to gambling devices. And even with those definitions things weren't very clear. I used to work for financial traders here in Chicago. Every year there would be an unofficial snow futures market. It was a fancy way for all the traders and clerks to gamble on…

It's certainly not well defined today; memecoins, prediction markets, sports betting, and more are all toeing the line of gambling.

Toeing the line? There is no underlying risk to any of that except the bet itself. Of course it is gambling.

Re: Meta's blockbuster trial draws parallels to big tobacco

#149

Post by rglullis »

Aurornis wrote: post #81
meowkit wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Do you use personal / behavioral data / usage to shape the user experience and recommendations, creating a reinforcing loop?” Roughly that.

This would include everything from my Spotify recommending new music that I like to my Netflix showing me similar shows. I'm a responsible adult. I want those things. I make use of them. They make my life better when I'm trying to listen to some music while I work on something or when I have exactly 2 hours of TV watching time in a week and don't want to waste it finding a new show. I do not want regulations coming a…

> I want those things. I make use of them.

Can you opt out of those features? If not, how do you know you want those things or if you are just being manipulated into using them?

Re: Meta's blockbuster trial draws parallels to big tobacco

#150

Post by Sharlin »

rglullis wrote: post #148
pants2 wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's certainly not well defined today; memecoins, prediction markets, sports betting, and more are all toeing the line of gambling.

Toeing the line? There is no underlying risk to any of that except the bet itself. Of course it is gambling.

Not in the eyes of law (in many or most jurisdictions that regulate gambling).
Post reply on HN