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

271–280 of 1001 posts

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

#271

Post by lostmyoldone »

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…

In the case of Facebook they absolutely do not try to please me. They quite literally tries to do the exact opposite of everything I would like from my feed.

Chronological with the ability to easily filter who I see, and who I post to. On each point capabilities has either been removed, hidden, or made worse in some other creative way.

Adding insult to injury, having to periodically figure out where they've now hidden the save button for events, or some other feature they don't want me to use is always a 'fun' exercise.

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

#272

Post by Vysero »

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…

Close your eyes, hold your breath and hope the situation resolves itself, that's your solution? I don't believe in a: "hidden human need/instinct to argue with people". There is nothing hidden about human conflict. It is as natural as any conflict; as natural as space and time. In fact, without conflict evolution can not exist. Obviously, a good portion of the arguments being had have the potential of bearing no fruit, but I would argue that just as many of them not only should but NEED to be had, and are quite productive on the whole.

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

#274

Post by thisiszilff »

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.

It does seem logical: your in person interactions are mediated by your personal relationship with people. Online you can come across anything and everything. The in person equivalent would be walking by ten or twenty small protests set up with megaphones loudly arguing for various things you vehemently disagree with.

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

#275

Post by visarga »

pathseeker wrote: post #265
gonehome wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wom…

That's a learned behaviour - to ignore opposing arguments. They train themselves to counter arguments they don't like with their own prefabricated arguments, learned from the mass media.

Like, for example: politician X is corrupt, he was caught taking bribes. Counter: everyone is stealing, at least his party gives our group more benefits than the other party.

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

#277

Post by AlexandrB »

renewiltord wrote: post #56

People always blame Facebook when the existence of Internet forums has always led to radicalization of individuals. Facebook's crime is making forums accessible to all. These are just your fellow people. This is how they are in the situation that they're in. So be it. Let them speak to others like them. The cost of that is many angry people. The benefit of that is that folks like me can find my people. That benefit o…

> This is just the price of the open society.

I don't think an open society can be built on top of an advertising platform. Facebook is not a neutral party here - they control who sees what content at what time with little accountability or transparency.

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

#278

Post by HenryBemis »

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…

In my line of work, we need to dig deep and find the root cause on anything we 'touch'. I have noticed (since day 1 in this line of work) that elaborate, complex truths tire the audience, they want something snappy and 'sexy'. I remember a French C-suite telling me "make it sexy, you will lose them".

Facebook managed to get this just right: lightweight, sexy (in the sense of attractive), easy to believe, easy to understand, easy to spread. The word "true" is completely absent on the above statement. That generates clicks. That keeps users logged in more. That increases "engagement". That increases as revenue. Game over.

The masterminds/communications brilliant minds could never get so many eyeballs and ears tuned-in with such a low cost before.

I've mentioned before that FB = cancer It gives 1 (ability to communicate) and it takes 100.

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

#279

Post by mac01021 »

gimboland wrote: post #252
maest wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's an interesting thought, for sure. I should point out that this doesn't only apply to facebook, but other large discussion forums as well: reddit, 4chan, tumblr, twitter etc.

And Hacker News! > some hidden human need/instinct to argue with people who they believe are incorrect I've said it before, I'll probably say it again: this place is chock full of people just itching to tell you you're wrong and why. Don't get me wrong: obviously there's also a hell of a lot of great discussion and insightful technical knowhow being shared by real experts — but in my experience I also do have to wade…

I, for one, wouldn't have it any other way!

When I'm wrong I want it explained to me why. Even when I'm right about something controversial, I want to see the best arguments to the contrary.

I don't want people to be less argumentative. I just want a higher intellectual caliber than what's generally available on facebook or twitter, and HN fits the bill reasonably well.

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

#280

Post by mark-r »

Vysero wrote: post #272
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…

Close your eyes, hold your breath and hope the situation resolves itself, that's your solution? I don't believe in a: "hidden human need/instinct to argue with people". There is nothing hidden about human conflict. It is as natural as any conflict; as natural as space and time. In fact, without conflict evolution can not exist. Obviously, a good portion of the arguments being had have the potential of bearing no frui…

There is definitely such a need, which is why this cartoon is one of my favorites of all time: https://xkcd.com/386/
Post reply on HN