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

121–130 of 381 posts

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

#121

Post by embedding-shape »

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

Well, they claim they've done their own independent investigations, maybe started because of that bloggers/vloggers work, but still could be independent. What exactly is pointing towards it not being independent? It seems to be a detailed enough account of why the people break Facebook's own guidelines, yet receive money from Facebook.

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

#122

Post by modo_mario »

hhjinks wrote: post #52
pizza234 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a distinction between: - Meta is commissioning or sponsoring rage-bait - Controversial creators are earning money through Facebook's content monetization program The title is ambiguous (at first, I thought it was the first case), and that's where the clickbait lies. No doubt that also the second case is a serious problem, but that's orthogonal to the ambiguity of the title.

The distinction disappears when Facebook incentivizes the creation of the rage-bait content by prioritizing it in their algorithm. They can, at any moment, de-rank rage-bait, but they don't. That clearly signals "make rage-bait for our platform and we'll pay you." Contrast it with something like Elsagate. Google actioned the offending creators and attempted to deprioritize the kind of content that caused the controve…

>They can, at any moment, de-rank rage-bait, but they don't. That clearly signals "make rage-bait for our platform and we'll pay you."

They don't because they don't select for it. They disporotionally push engagement but as far as I know don't have some indians or AI working tirelessly analysing countless videos to categorise them and rank them according to how ragebaity or controversial they are. Those things just rise to the top out of their effort to drive engagement and screentime.

Any alternative that does the same will end up with similar result.

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

#123

Post by Tangurena2 »

koe123 wrote: post #68

Every single time historically we have unregulated media you get a shitshow. I think you can blame our societies nonchalant lassez faire attitude to the propaganda profiteering by American big tech for lots of the issues we face today. Honestly: do cocaine laced recommender algorithms really benefit us? I really hope the EU fully bans this stuff.

That used to be called "yellow journalism" in America (and "tabloid journalism" in the UK) which led to the Spanish American war in 1898.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish%E2%80%93American_War

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

#124

Post by lazide »

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.

It’s the new smoking. It’s currently at the stage they profess ignorance while being lambasted with all the videos of them clearly knowing what was going on and lying to congress about it.

I give it a couple years before the PSA about ‘your brain on social media’ or whatever.

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

#125

Post by phatfish »

wpietri wrote: post #55

> "it is not Meta's role to police offensiveness" Just to fund, transmit, amplify, protect, and profit from it.

Zuck was gagging for the Trump 2nd term so he could go all in on this shit. Slow clap for the Meta employees that enable it.

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

#126

Post by hhjinks »

modo_mario wrote: post #122
hhjinks wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The distinction disappears when Facebook incentivizes the creation of the rage-bait content by prioritizing it in their algorithm. They can, at any moment, de-rank rage-bait, but they don't. That clearly signals "make rage-bait for our platform and we'll pay you." Contrast it with something like Elsagate. Google actioned the offending creators and attempted to deprioritize the kind of content that caused the controve…

>They can, at any moment, de-rank rage-bait, but they don't. That clearly signals "make rage-bait for our platform and we'll pay you." They don't because they don't select for it. They disporotionally push engagement but as far as I know don't have some indians or AI working tirelessly analysing countless videos to categorise them and rank them according to how ragebaity or controversial they are. Those things just r…

I find it hard to believe that Facebook's feed is "dumb" and only promotes what's engaging the most users. They serve you content that they think you will find engaging, and there has to be some automatic categorization as a result.

And regardless, even if they don't select for rage-bait, they still refuse to take action against accounts that repeatedly post it, making your interjection largely pointless.

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

#127

Post by baggachipz »

Razengan wrote: post #116
carefulfungi wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because, often, that's how they became the richest, most powerful humans. If your goal is to have money and power, and you have more today than yesterday, the world for you didn't get worse.

After a point what difference does it make? When you literally have a billion dollars what difference does 1 million more make?

Just your common dick-measuring contest at a different echelon. When all people are NPCs to be exploited, getting the highest score is the goal.

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

#128

Post by fosron »

soco wrote: post #41
fosron wrote: post #13

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.

And is Lithuania doing anything about it? In Romania Facebook and TikTok do whatever they please, and whatever they are paid to do, with complete impunity as the authorities actively do nothing at all.

Our police has a page called "Virtual Police Patrol" which allows reporting of these cases. Some of the worst trolls have been prosecuted and sentenced. But we're not doing much regarding Facebook itself, just cleaning up with the results of it.

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

#129

Post by koe123 »

rayiner wrote: post #80
koe123 wrote: post #68

Every single time historically we have unregulated media you get a shitshow. I think you can blame our societies nonchalant lassez faire attitude to the propaganda profiteering by American big tech for lots of the issues we face today. Honestly: do cocaine laced recommender algorithms really benefit us? I really hope the EU fully bans this stuff.

“Unregulated media.” LOL.

Care to elaborate? You don’t think the creator of “You should self harm: the TV show” would’ve been regulated and held accountable for the detrimental consequences back in the day? Not saying it was perfect back then, but today I do think internet media companies are out of control.
Post reply on HN