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

Facebook removed the news feed algorithm in an experiment

bigtechnology.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 149 posts

Re: Facebook removed the news feed algorithm in an experiment

#21

Post by throwaway0a5e »

KaiserPro wrote: post #20
gfosco wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The goal wasn't more money, there are more variables involved. One way to look at it might be, short-term more money vs long-term total narrative control.

given that the algorithm is never going to be as effective as an editorial department, I don't understand the "total narrative control" argument. Facebook and instagram are social phase locked loops. Open a new instagram account, search for content that you like, like them, then what how it shove more/similar stuff into your feed. Now pivot to a different subject, only like that, and watch how your feed moves to that…

Opaque ML algorithm can't tip off the press to misdeeds the same way a disgruntled editor can.

Re: Facebook removed the news feed algorithm in an experiment

#22

Post by wodenokoto »

asimpletune wrote: post #12

I don’t remember what Facebook had instead of a news feed in 2008, but I do remember thinking Facebook was so cool then. When messenger came out, it was amazing. It was totally normal then to message random people who you thought were cool and just have a conversation. I would even get random chats from Facebook employees. It just seemed so different then than now. I’m just trying to piece together the evolution of F…

They had the news feed back then too, although it looked very differently. The two major differences between fb and myspace was the forced layout and that you didn't have to browse the site to see if there were updates on friends walls.

The major difference is what people are posting, and how tangentially related to your network, the posts on your newsfeed are.

Back then celebrities and news media weren't part of the platform, so you didn't really have these major intersections in the graph. I also believe that you had to re-share in order to push a post into a node that isn't directly connected to the posts author. Today a like is enough.

The reason why facebook is uncool now, is a mix between who the active users are, and how much room and focus facebook puts on links to newssite and posts by people who aren't your friends.

Re: Facebook removed the news feed algorithm in an experiment

#23

Post by sdrinf »

asimpletune wrote: post #12

I don’t remember what Facebook had instead of a news feed in 2008, but I do remember thinking Facebook was so cool then. When messenger came out, it was amazing. It was totally normal then to message random people who you thought were cool and just have a conversation. I would even get random chats from Facebook employees. It just seemed so different then than now. I’m just trying to piece together the evolution of F…

For the record, the turning point was 2016, when basically every single sleeper cell “friend” was activated by mass agitprop, leading to a frenzy of political activity, and in the process suffocating everything else valuable of human attention.

Re: Facebook removed the news feed algorithm in an experiment

#24

Post by mikem170 »

s17n wrote: post #18
gfosco wrote: post #6

Data wins arguments. One of my least favorite Facebook quotes. Bad data wins arguments, too. The misdirection term here is 'news feed ranking algorithm'... and what that means in the experiment versus what you might think that means, huge difference. e.g. I think most would assume the algorithm is responsible for showing you an unknown post that a friend merely liked, but it's right there in the article as still happ…

You can say that explicit curation and intention is the way things "should be" as much as you like, but all the evidence suggests that most people strongly prefer automated curation.

Giving users the option to toggle the algorithm on/off would be nice.

Re: Facebook removed the news feed algorithm in an experiment

#25

Post by munk-a »

s17n wrote: post #18
gfosco wrote: post #6

Data wins arguments. One of my least favorite Facebook quotes. Bad data wins arguments, too. The misdirection term here is 'news feed ranking algorithm'... and what that means in the experiment versus what you might think that means, huge difference. e.g. I think most would assume the algorithm is responsible for showing you an unknown post that a friend merely liked, but it's right there in the article as still happ…

You can say that explicit curation and intention is the way things "should be" as much as you like, but all the evidence suggests that most people strongly prefer automated curation.

Not all automated curation is built equal and boiling it down to just one thing really confuses things. I absolutely adore YouTube's automated curation since the primary goal there is just to steer me to things I'll find interesting - the ads are present on all content and so YT just wants to keep me on the platform for as long as possible.

When it comes to Facebook it always feels like I'm being steered towards topics that yield monetizable verbiage. If a friend likes an upcoming concert I'll definitely hear about it loud and clear - while as an upcoming picnic or personal project being planned is less likely to float to the top.

Re: Facebook removed the news feed algorithm in an experiment

#26

Post by mikem170 »

KaiserPro wrote: post #20
gfosco wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The goal wasn't more money, there are more variables involved. One way to look at it might be, short-term more money vs long-term total narrative control.

given that the algorithm is never going to be as effective as an editorial department, I don't understand the "total narrative control" argument. Facebook and instagram are social phase locked loops. Open a new instagram account, search for content that you like, like them, then what how it shove more/similar stuff into your feed. Now pivot to a different subject, only like that, and watch how your feed moves to that…

Putting users into echo chambers is not narrative control?

They could have made the algorithm so it showed users brand new different material, or opposing material, or more details, or related material from friends instead of corporations, or from people geographically nearby, or chronological, or let users find their own material and/or build their own feeds.

Instead of any of that they show them similar material, like you said, effectively putting everyone in echo chambers.

Re: Facebook removed the news feed algorithm in an experiment

#27

Post by jjulius »

fsflover wrote: post #14
rob_c wrote: 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.

>Not if the other platform is decentralized...

Like all of the other decentralized social media platforms that most people just don't care about? I'd argue that social media has become so polarized that, no matter their views, most people will want some sort of centralized body setting rules that act in their (the user's) interests.

>... and doesn't rely on advertising money.

People have widely adopted social media because they're not charged anything (aside from their privacy being invaded) to use it. How is such a platform staying online without charging users or using advertiser money?

Re: Facebook removed the news feed algorithm in an experiment

#28

Post by [deleted] »

s17n wrote: post #18
gfosco wrote: post #6

Data wins arguments. One of my least favorite Facebook quotes. Bad data wins arguments, too. The misdirection term here is 'news feed ranking algorithm'... and what that means in the experiment versus what you might think that means, huge difference. e.g. I think most would assume the algorithm is responsible for showing you an unknown post that a friend merely liked, but it's right there in the article as still happ…

You can say that explicit curation and intention is the way things "should be" as much as you like, but all the evidence suggests that most people strongly prefer automated curation.

[deleted]

Re: Facebook removed the news feed algorithm in an experiment

#29

Post by specialist »

s17n wrote: post #18
gfosco wrote: post #6

Data wins arguments. One of my least favorite Facebook quotes. Bad data wins arguments, too. The misdirection term here is 'news feed ranking algorithm'... and what that means in the experiment versus what you might think that means, huge difference. e.g. I think most would assume the algorithm is responsible for showing you an unknown post that a friend merely liked, but it's right there in the article as still happ…

You can say that explicit curation and intention is the way things "should be" as much as you like, but all the evidence suggests that most people strongly prefer automated curation.

The fiction of rational choice usually makes at least a performative nod towards informed consumers, actual choices, clear results, and consent. Which of those prerequistites does Facebook fulfill?

Re: Facebook removed the news feed algorithm in an experiment

#30

Post by ringworld »

mikem170 wrote: post #24
s17n wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can say that explicit curation and intention is the way things "should be" as much as you like, but all the evidence suggests that most people strongly prefer automated curation.

Giving users the option to toggle the algorithm on/off would be nice.

It used to be that way. Then they started "forgetting" everyone's setting to turn it off (go back to the original reverse time based feed), then they took the option away. After purchasing Instagram they did the same exact thing, FB engineering specifically removed the feature on their platforms.
Post reply on HN