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

Facebook is cooked

pilk.website

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

461–470 of 890 posts

Re: Facebook is cooked

#461

Post by _3u10 »

dekhn wrote: post #101
esseph wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I stopped when it started showing propaganda from the CCP What did you do when it showed you propaganda from other countries?

Well, I'm in the US, I already know how to recognize US propaganda and ignore it :) I don't think I was shown anything that was clearly labelled as "state-sponsored-media" from any other country and I don't think I saw anything that was propaganda, but not labelled as such, although I typically scrolled past the obvious ads and AI slop so I might have missed something.

Yeah, it definitely never labelled state sponsored media from the UK or Canada for me. Living in Paraguay, it still doesn't label it as a state sponsored propaganda. I'm not sure why propaganda from Eastern / Mainland Taiwan gets so much attention, the legitimate government there certainly does not sponsor it.

Re: Facebook is cooked

#462

Post by kccqzy »

jedberg wrote: post #204

> So: is this just something wacky with my algorithm? No, it's not. Once Meta identifies you as male, you will get almost exclusively thirst trap posts no matter what you do. It started about two years ago. Some other interesting points: A woman posted on reddit recently saying she noticed her son's feed was filled with this stuff, so she created her own instagram account, identified as a man, and had the same feed.…

I don’t understand. What you describe is foreign to me. My Instagram only has posts from people I follow, as well as generic ads like newspapers. I have not seen any of these thirst trap posts (not that I would find these posts appealing; they aren’t my type anyways).

Re: Facebook is cooked

#463

Post by kinnth »

Why wont they actually allow users to control their own algorithms? Why can't we switch off "thirst" or "cat videos"?

I don't social media much but to not be on it, is FOMO for your social life. Someone out there needs to open up the algo to your own CHOSEN bias' not the ones they know get clicks.

I hate the whole damn thing!

Re: Facebook is cooked

#464

Post by the_af »

bko wrote: post #277
curious_af wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

International flight attendant. So the algorithms for people that travel internationally a lot are drastically different from the people who remain stationary. If Facebook wanted to prevent themselves from negative publicity, they might have a different experience for the people who have political power (international travel might be the best proxy for that) What you're referring to may also be part of their XCheck p…

I think you're overthinking it. She probably just has a lot of real people connections and drives the algo to meaningful interactions. When a ghost logs in, they don't know what to show so default to "general" spam which is just AI generated woman.

This is very likely.

It reminds me of people who browse YouTube logged off: they see garbage, spam, rage bait, and sexy girls doing sexy stuff.

But I browse logged in and my carefully curated subscriptions mean I mostly get good quality, relevant recommendations, and almost zero rage bait or outrageous stuff.

Re: Facebook is cooked

#466

Post by nobody_r_knows »

blibble wrote: post #454
javascriptfan69 wrote: post #386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I genuinely think we will look back at the algorithmic content feed as being on par with leaded gasoline or cigarettes in terms of societal harm. Maybe worse since it is engineered to be as addictive as possible down to an individual level. Then again maybe I'm being too optimistic that it will be fixed before it destroys us.

I think it's worse, cigarettes never threatened democracy the solution is real easy, section 230 should not apply if there's an recommendation algorithm involved treat the company as a traditional publisher because they are, they're editorialising by selecting the content vs, say, the old style facebook wall (a raw feed from user's friends), which should qualify for section 230

[dead]

Re: Facebook is cooked

#467

Post by jamwil »

_3u10 wrote: post #447
jrmg wrote: post #444

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You appear to be saying that this is the content it will just serve to a middle age man who hasn’t used it in a long time by default. You don’t think that’s problematic?

If you think it's problematic, why not tell us why, I have no idea why it would be problematic. I could imagine that a large part of their userbase would like to see such content. I would actually bet that it generates a lot of clicks and ad rev. To me it sounded like the content was body positive, and promoting women who constitute a minority of society and face a lot of undue scrutiny from the majority because of t…

Found a clanker

Re: Facebook is cooked

#468

Post by kryogen1c »

bko wrote: post #277
curious_af wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

International flight attendant. So the algorithms for people that travel internationally a lot are drastically different from the people who remain stationary. If Facebook wanted to prevent themselves from negative publicity, they might have a different experience for the people who have political power (international travel might be the best proxy for that) What you're referring to may also be part of their XCheck p…

I think you're overthinking it. She probably just has a lot of real people connections and drives the algo to meaningful interactions. When a ghost logs in, they don't know what to show so default to "general" spam which is just AI generated woman.

Lol! "Facebook's not bad, you're just a loser"

Re: Facebook is cooked

#469

Post by jballanc »

blibble wrote: post #454
javascriptfan69 wrote: post #386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I genuinely think we will look back at the algorithmic content feed as being on par with leaded gasoline or cigarettes in terms of societal harm. Maybe worse since it is engineered to be as addictive as possible down to an individual level. Then again maybe I'm being too optimistic that it will be fixed before it destroys us.

I think it's worse, cigarettes never threatened democracy the solution is real easy, section 230 should not apply if there's an recommendation algorithm involved treat the company as a traditional publisher because they are, they're editorialising by selecting the content vs, say, the old style facebook wall (a raw feed from user's friends), which should qualify for section 230

The problem with this is that section 230 was specifically created to promote editorializing. Before section 230, online platforms were loath to engage in any moderation because they feared that a hint of moderation would jump them over into the realm of "publisher" where they could be held liable for the veracity of the content they published and, given the choice between no moderation at all or full editorial responsibility, many of the early internet platforms would have chosen no moderation (as full editorial responsibility would have been cost prohibitive).

In other words, that filter that keeps Nazis, child predators, doxing, etc. off your favorite platform only exists because of section 230.

Now, one could argue that the biggest platforms (Meta, Youtube, etc.) can, at this point, afford the cost of full editorial responsibility, but repealing section 230 under this logic only serves to put up a barrier to entry to any smaller competitor that might dislodge these platforms from their high, and lucrative, perch. I used to believe that the better fix would be to amend section 230 to shield filtering/removal, but not selective promotion, but TikTok has shown (rather cleverly) that selective filtering/removal can be just as effective as selective promotion of content.

Re: Facebook is cooked

#470

Post by RajT88 »

hobom wrote: post #453
kube-system wrote: post #399

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is actually the scariest part of the article for me. It's clear we've got to the point where at a glance it is hard for those who are otherwise unaware to tell the difference between AI slop and organic content. If nerds on HN can't tell the difference between an AI slop influencer and a fairly well-regarded human influencer... how can we expect the rest of the public to tell the difference when it comes to scie…

The article didn't suggest that the video mentioned was AI slop, it correctly recognised it as human generated.

Indeed. He thought it was not AI slop, but the kind of low-effort slop ruining Facebook.

Your opinions may vary, but this is not one of those super clickbaity social media personalities; people like her because she's funny.

Post reply on HN