Live data from Hacker News

Facebook removed the news feed algorithm in an experiment

bigtechnology.substack.com

121–130 of 149 posts

Re: Facebook removed the news feed algorithm in an experiment

#121

I'm under the impression that people are getting irrationally afraid of "algorithms". Like if some evil AI is controlling people mind. People wants to read the stuff they are interested in. No algorithm is forcing people to watch fox news for instance. That being said, FB should give the option to disable the news feed algorithm (or to have several version to choose from maybe), if that makes people happy.

Algorithms are tuned by human beings that are motivated by profit. Algorithms are not computer magic that show people "stuff they are interested in", they're designed to put companies' partners' content in front of eyeballs for money for long periods of time.

Re: Facebook removed the news feed algorithm in an experiment

#122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

100% agree. In addition, look at their metrics. When it comes to "meaningful social interaction", calling Uncle Joey a stupid ass because he posted another semi-racist Obama meme is the same as telling Cousin Jane you like her baby pics. I should HOPE "meaningful social interactions" go down with a reverse-chron, friends-only feed.

Aren't those both equally meaningless? Maybe this is why I don't participate in social media anymore XD

[deleted]

Re: Facebook removed the news feed algorithm in an experiment

#123
post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, and you could see it coming. I remember joking pre-2016 about the upcoming election, wondering how many of my friends would start unfriending each other. I had no idea how big a change was actually coming. I wonder why it didn't happen in 2012. I remember ACA arguments on Facebook but while they were contentious, they were generally value-driven and not based off of batshit lies.

> I wonder why it didn't happen in 2012. I remember ACA arguments on Facebook but while they were contentious, they were generally value-driven and not based off of batshit lies Both candidates in 2012 went out of their way to maintain civility to each other publicly. I think when a candidate treats their opponent with respect, the followers tend to follow mostly in suit, but if they don't, it kind of just opens the…

> Both candidates in 2012 went out of their way to maintain civility to each other publicly.

When George W. Bush was running for governor of Texas against Ann Richards in the late 90s (before anyone but us was on the internet), Karl Rove distributed printed pamphlets, particularly in churches in East Texas among evangelicals, talking about her secret lesbian lover. She's not a lesbian.

And of course when Hillary Clinton lost in 2016 she invented (or paid someone else to invent, more accurately) this ridiculous Russian conspiracy narrative that persists because press outlets affiliated with her party continue to amplify it.

In 2000, the aforementioned GW Bush's party had the chief justice of the SCOTUS (who incidentally got that job despite living in an AZ neighborhood back in the 60s deed restricted to whites only and organizing a sort of election day mob that would physically confront non-white voters standing in line to vote) stop counting ballots to ensure that Bush won.

Before Reagan appointed Rehnquist chief justice, when he was campaigning against Carter in 1979/80, he was giving speeches at notorious lynching sites around the former confederate states and talking about the "oppression of the IRS" (this was shortly after the IRS had stripped Bob Jones University of its non-profit status during Carter's tenure for refusing to admit black students).

Civility is anomaly, not the trend.

I'm all for criticizing Facebook for what Facebook does wrong but it's just a mirror, it doesn't have any original content on it. The same can be said of political candidates. If their message lacks resonance with what would-be voters believe already, no one will repeat it.

Re: Facebook removed the news feed algorithm in an experiment

#125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

YTs recommendations are infamous for getting people radicalized, into conspiracy theories, and filled with misinformation.

I'm highly skeptical of those claims. This seems mostly like wild claims from legacy media that doesn't want you to watch streaming video. Yes, I'm familiar with the relevant studies.

Which studies are funded by legacy media? There are undoubted way more that are not.

I’ve been fed all kinds of UFO and other strange videos by YT myself.

Re: Facebook removed the news feed algorithm in an experiment

#126
post #10

I dread that even if it were stripped from Facebook tomorrow the damage is done and cat out the bag, another platform would just copy and rise to the top of the pile that is "social" media...

Not if the other platform is decentralized and doesn't rely on advertising money.

The damage is done by the psychological manipulation used to keep people engaged with the platform, not the centralization or advertising.

Platforms that eschew psychological manipulation don't grow as large. That is the proverbial cat.

Re: Facebook removed the news feed algorithm in an experiment

#127

I'm under the impression that people are getting irrationally afraid of "algorithms". Like if some evil AI is controlling people mind. People wants to read the stuff they are interested in. No algorithm is forcing people to watch fox news for instance. That being said, FB should give the option to disable the news feed algorithm (or to have several version to choose from maybe), if that makes people happy.

Engagement loops do control people's minds. They explicitly aim to maximize the amount of time people spend on a platform. They are inherently manipulative by definition.

It's common when interacting with an engagement loop to experience a loss of agency (perceived, at least). People don't like that feeling, even when they like the content they are being shown.

Machines can be built to exploit odd elements of human psychology. I strongly recommend the book Addiction by Design.

Re: Facebook removed the news feed algorithm in an experiment

#128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm highly skeptical of those claims. This seems mostly like wild claims from legacy media that doesn't want you to watch streaming video. Yes, I'm familiar with the relevant studies.

Which legacy media is not making a streaming migration effort currently with enough sway to manipulate the narrative? I'm not aware of any major players not moving to svod or avod in the US.

All you need to know is Youtube, one of the biggest and most popular streaming services with young people, is literally turning your children into Nazis.

Re: Facebook removed the news feed algorithm in an experiment

#129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And as Twitter shows, it's not hard to offer both options and let users choose. Twitter also implemented a timer so that, if you choose simple reverse chron, it forces you back into the ranking algorithm after a certain period of time. Hmm, I wonder why they'd go to the trouble to do that? Maybe these social networks have motivations that override user experience?

FB isn't going to do anything that doesn't affect at least 30% of users. As always this is all about revenue.

I'm sure FB has done many, many things that affect less than 30% of users

Re: Facebook removed the news feed algorithm in an experiment

#130
While Facebook has created an addictive and destructive engagement machine, I'm really unimpressed with the contrarian response - as if manual follow/curation & reverse chrono is the only alternative.

While transparency and control of the "ranking algorithm" is important, I reject the implication that infiniscroll content feed is the best that social media can ever be.

Facebook (and others) have decided that discovery, chores, social upkeep, political activism, learning etc all belong in One Big Recommendation System. This is entirely new territory from a psychological perspective: Throughout history, humans have focused largely on one mental task at a time. You don't read Dostoevsky while having a drink with your friends, or answer emails while watching TV. Mental multitasking quickly converges on the low effort/instant gratification task. Add your favorite attention disorder to amplify this problem to the point of surrender.

Any meaningful alternative needs to account for these psychological biases. Although this is new territory, we've been through this before - with porn. Basically, if you mix porn with other content, then porn becomes predominant. Hence, any non-porn platform needs to ban porn. Reddit is an interesting counter-example, because their subreddit barriers work pretty damn well, so even though there is porn on the platform, it hasn't infected everything else.

Similar to the porn issue, we'll never extinguish celebrity clickbait, conspiracy theories and racist uncle posting memes. However, we might be able to partition it. How about designing tech which makes it POSSIBLE to avoid "crap", at least temporarily, without an outright boycott, careful curation or browser extensions?

Post reply on HN