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

Facebook executives shut down efforts to make the site less divisive

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 1001 posts

Re: Facebook executives shut down efforts to make the site less divisive

#261

Post by empath75 »

lmilcin wrote: post #98

The problem really is platforms that give people content to please them. An algorithm selects content that you are likely to agree with or that you have shown previous interest. This only causes people to get reinforced in their beliefs and this leads to polarization. For example, when I browse videos on Youtube I will only get democratic content (even though I am from Poland). Seems as soon as you click on couple en…

> The problem really is platforms that give people content to please them.

But it doesn't please them -- study after study shows a high correlation between depression and anxiety and social media use.

Re: Facebook executives shut down efforts to make the site less divisive

#262

Post by NoodleIncident »

DSingularity wrote: post #162
NoodleIncident wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> some product/feature has harmful effect of something/someone but is good for the business of the company If you start with such black-and-white assumptions, you will never be able to actually empathize with those people. Nothing is that simple when you're close enough to see the details. Things good for the company should be and frequently are good for the people using the product. The same thing can also harm the…

People are more isolated in the real world? Please provide a source. Aside from the fact that this is hard to measure now that the underlying medium has itself been modified — I would hardly expect this to be the case. Online I am connected to those whom I socialize with or am otherwise professionally connected to. In the “real world” this constraint is largely absent.

This is the hardest source I can find, but it only measures what happens on Facebook. The numbers do seem higher than what I'd expect for IRL conversations, though:

https://research.fb.com/blog/2015/05/exposure-to-diverse-inf...

> Online I am connected to those whom I socialize with or am otherwise professionally connected to. In the “real world” this constraint is largely absent.

This seems entirely backwards to me? Maybe you talk more with strangers IRL than online, but I doubt it. I only have n=1 (me), but we are talking right now. Who knows where we live in relation to each other?

So much of politics is split between urban and rural environments. Those groups are defined by where they live, so I expect very few conversations in person between the two, especially about politics.

Re: Facebook executives shut down efforts to make the site less divisive

#263

Post by clairity »

NoodleIncident wrote: post #131
yumraj wrote: post #17

I've always wondered how such discussions go in company meetings where some product/feature has harmful effect of something/someone but is good for the business of the company. I cannot believe that everyone is ethicality challenged, only perhaps the people in control. So what goes through that minds of people who don't agree with such decisions. Do they keep quiet, just worry about the payroll, convince themselves t…

> some product/feature has harmful effect of something/someone but is good for the business of the company If you start with such black-and-white assumptions, you will never be able to actually empathize with those people. Nothing is that simple when you're close enough to see the details. Things good for the company should be and frequently are good for the people using the product. The same thing can also harm the…

yes, it's never simply black-and-white, but you're overstating that case, especially with facebook. by now, nearly everyone in tech and many adjacent industries (e.g., entertainment) has heard about and probably internalized the downsides of facebook, particularly the mechanisms and tactics employed to advance facebook at the detriment of society at large. it's pretty clear many of those people at facebook are avoiding or ignoring inconvenient truths when it comes to removing those mechanisms and tactics to the benefit of society at large but at the detriment of facebook.

Re: Facebook executives shut down efforts to make the site less divisive

#264

Post by LordHumungous »

supernova87a wrote: post #149

I really didn't realize until perhaps the last 2 years that Facebook fundamentally tapped some hidden human need/instinct to argue with people who they believe are incorrect. Specifically, and more importantly, combined with the human inability to actively decide to not pay attention when things are inconsequential or not yet worth arguing about. Sometimes, just shutting up about an issue and not discussing it is the…

Yeah. There's a lot of relief in letting go, accepting that other people are outside of your power to control, and just practicing acceptance no matter how wrong or annoying or stupid you think people are being.

Re: Facebook executives shut down efforts to make the site less divisive

#265

Post by pathseeker »

gonehome wrote: post #207
derg wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In general and not necessarily related to just facebook, but one of the best things I've come to learn about myself and the world around me is that sometimes the absolute _best_ thing you can do for yourself is to just shut up and walk away, even if you know in your heart of hearts that you are correct.

I think this is generally helpful to keep in mind. I also think there’s an art to deescalation and discussing ideas or persuading someone you disagree with to see an alternative view (and then giving them space to change their mind). Productive discussion isn’t possible with everyone or even one individual depending on where they are in their life, but I’ve generally found it works better than expected when you can r…

>I also think there’s an art to deescalation and discussing ideas or persuading someone you disagree with to see an alternative view

This doesn't really work with core views like politics. Some of the most polarizing topics are not because the opposite side can't see your view, it's because you fundamentally disagree on priorities.

Examples:

Anti-abortion people aren't going to be persuaded by yet another view on women's rights. They think you're arguing to murder babies. The plight of a woman in poverty is not going to suddenly make them go, "oh, well then I guess a litte murder is okay."

A libertarian isn't going to be swayed to suddenly think a planned economy is a better approach even when presented with spectacular market failures. They completely understand the failures suck and understand the alternative views just fine. Another anecdote is not realistically going to alter a belief that central planning is worse overall.

Re: Facebook executives shut down efforts to make the site less divisive

#266

Post by xapata »

yumraj wrote: post #17

I've always wondered how such discussions go in company meetings where some product/feature has harmful effect of something/someone but is good for the business of the company. I cannot believe that everyone is ethicality challenged, only perhaps the people in control. So what goes through that minds of people who don't agree with such decisions. Do they keep quiet, just worry about the payroll, convince themselves t…

> how such discussions go

In my case, I told my manager about a system design problem that would cause a daily annoyance to 100k people, forcing them to input their passwords more often than necessary. He said, "they'll accept it." I said, "I quit."

Re: Facebook executives shut down efforts to make the site less divisive

#268

Post by wfbarks »

supernova87a wrote: post #149

I really didn't realize until perhaps the last 2 years that Facebook fundamentally tapped some hidden human need/instinct to argue with people who they believe are incorrect. Specifically, and more importantly, combined with the human inability to actively decide to not pay attention when things are inconsequential or not yet worth arguing about. Sometimes, just shutting up about an issue and not discussing it is the…

wish that I could actively decide not to pay attention to this comment, but I am unable.

Re: Facebook executives shut down efforts to make the site less divisive

#269

Post by ErikAugust »

supernova87a wrote: post #149

I really didn't realize until perhaps the last 2 years that Facebook fundamentally tapped some hidden human need/instinct to argue with people who they believe are incorrect. Specifically, and more importantly, combined with the human inability to actively decide to not pay attention when things are inconsequential or not yet worth arguing about. Sometimes, just shutting up about an issue and not discussing it is the…

I think it’s important to note that Facebook didn’t invent any of this. They just built the biggest mainstream distribution channel to do so. Nothing they ever did in terms of facilitating pointless arguments has been all that original either.

People have been doing this forever, and even on the Web much, much longer than Facebook has existed.

Now that said, they know what they have on their hands and how it makes them the money. They aren’t going to fix it. It is a big feature of their product.

Re: Facebook executives shut down efforts to make the site less divisive

#270

Post by carapace »

crazygringo wrote: post #224
alharith wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am sorry to say, this seems like a thoughtful answer but there is a lot of nonsense in it is as well. For example, pluralism doesn't state there is no way to "find truth", but that in light of multiple views, to have good faith arguments, avoid extremism, and engage in dialog to find common ground. > but there are genuine ethical arguments on all sides. These ethical arguments, however genuine they may be, are not…

> pluralism doesn't state there is no way to "find truth" To the contrary, that is literally what pluralism as a philosophical concept says. You can read up on Isaiah Berlin's "value pluralism" [1], for example. > These ethical arguments, however genuine they may be, are not equal however On what basis? Again, the entire premise of pluralism provides no method for comparison. > this is, in fact, extremely intuitive M…

I dunno: the last sentence of the abstract of [2] is:

> A better understanding of voter irrationality advises us to rely less on democracy and more on the market.

To my mind this immediately brings up the question of why people who are irrational voters would be expected to be rational economic actors.

- - - -

...Ah! I just looked at it again and saw the sub-heading: "Cato Institute Policy Analysis Series No. 594"

PLONK!

Post reply on HN