Live data from Hacker News

Controversial creators are benefiting from monetization programs run by Meta

abc.net.au

141–150 of 381 posts

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

#142
post #80
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.

Right, cos we know that it's regulated - Elon rules X/Twitter, Mark rules Facebook, and shareholder value rules the others. In fact it's even more regulated now because Donald rules over them.

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

#144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like what?

Pravda is the most famous example UK “D-notices” are another great example And the Sedition Act, as well as the Comstock Act

Aren't the UK's D-notices advisory. I thought they could be (and often are) ignored by media outlets. I don't think they warrant a mention alongside Pravda.

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

#145
post #12

Social media platforms have been paying out for attention seeking behaviour for a long time now. It’s why every YouTube video now has the same lame shocked face, red arrows, and clickbait title. It’s why assholes film themselves intentionally pissing people off for TikTok. It’s a whole category called nuisance tubing. I remember during COVID I saw a number of YouTubers swing from producing normal content into conspir…

Indeed. What I noticed is that the quality of the videos went down on youtube in the last 3 years. Now, the quality was never as great as it used to be anyway, but Google changed various things that made youtube worse. They are slowly killing off youtube without realising it.

It's difficult for me to understand what people are getting out of the youtube experience, as I'm pretty straight up intolerant of most of the traits of this kind of content - all I hear recently from the neighbours kid's tablets and phones is loads of stuff with too-fast too-intense mono-tone TTS.

Such a shame that people take up against AI, rather than the people selecting and serving them slop.

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

#146
post #74

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.

I'll help you understand: Important information is many times only found on these platforms. Many local businesses and events only have their info on Facebook or Instagram. Many local community groups are only on Facebook, and you'll find information there that has a real impact on your life (like bus broke down).

The other part is messaging. In parts of Europe nobody uses WhatsApp or SMS to communicate, everybody is on Facebook messenger.

And there's still the old school social media posts: cousin had a baby, friend got married. And also content made for the general public which is not malicious.

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

#147
post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i recently downloaded it again after nearly a decade to use marketplace to buy a bike for my wife. Got the bike and deleted the app. but my god opening it up was hell. the interface on mobile is just....stressful. super cluttered, shit all over the place with notifications and things to see. first post i saw on there was someone i used to be friends with but havent thought about in years just blatently reposting ACTU…

I had a similar experience logging in to FB to delete my account which was inactive for almost a decade. It’s legit was like the movie Idiocracy. Casino vibes, over stimulation, people saying stupid thing, trying to sift through lots of garbage to find the thing you’re looking for.

thats exactly what i was telling my wife, a casino is way more accurate than what i said. i was like it felt like signing on to Temu with all of the shit all over the place

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

#148
post #74

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.

If I may offer: Because they have become fiendishly adept at exploiting an addictive behaviour/weakness in our brains WHILE masquerading as some sort of social utility (AND perhaps vestigially retaining some semblance of that) - which, incidentally, is what (some) originally might have been, before encrappification.-

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.

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

#149
post #9

This isn't anything new, it was abundantly clear after Facebook removed their fact checking team during covid that the priority was engagement over everything else, and rage bait is exactly that.

COVID-era “fact checking” went way beyond its remit and started to become a political tool. This had negative consequences for the average person’s trust in institutions of all kinds, because people really don’t like it when you attempt to police their individual political speech, even if it’s clearly inaccurate (as it so often is). It’s a good thing that it was removed. The problem with Meta is the monetization and…

[flagged]

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

#150
post #9

This isn't anything new, it was abundantly clear after Facebook removed their fact checking team during covid that the priority was engagement over everything else, and rage bait is exactly that.

COVID-era “fact checking” went way beyond its remit and started to become a political tool. This had negative consequences for the average person’s trust in institutions of all kinds, because people really don’t like it when you attempt to police their individual political speech, even if it’s clearly inaccurate (as it so often is). It’s a good thing that it was removed. The problem with Meta is the monetization and…

> because people really don’t like it when you attempt to police their individual political speech

I'm not sure that I buy that when people's health are at stake. When things are objectively false, and spreading that information will actively harm people, you have a responsibility and duty of care to point out falsities. But that's just me.

Post reply on HN