81–90 of 527 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd give that about 10 minutes before someone started claiming that their baby was immune to covid, and then you're right back where you started.
> claiming that their baby was immune to covid Some people are indeed immune to covid, babies too, most probably. I've personally heard of numerous cases of persons not getting the virus at all while their spouse was in intensive therapy or worse.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can't see how that is even possible at this point. You'd have to remove groups, pages, public profiles, and sharing, which would wreck the advertising and revenue ecosystem. Or, come up with magical AI which could detect politics/memes/disinformation and remove it instantly after it's been posted.
> You'd have to remove groups, pages, public profiles, and sharing Or they could just not show posts to groups you're not in and from pages and public profiles you don't follow! Allowing something to interject into your newsfeed should be opt-in, but right now it isn't even opt-out, except for not logging on at all. It would also be cool if there were a way to opt-out from seeing shared posts selectively for people o…
My timeline shows as strictly chronological, and only text and photos posted by my immediate friends. No groups, ads, publisher's bullshit, promoted things, no trending, no nothing. Just photos and plain text.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But isn't that only happening because of FB allowing disinformation to spread so easily?
Curious how you think it's possible for FB to prevent the spread of disinformation? Everyone likes to pretend like Facebook has the ability to just stop disinformation, when in reality, even defining "disinformation" is basically impossible. Sure, you can bring up examples of blatant lies, but most of the effective disinformation is a lot more subtle and depends on what side of the issues you are on.
So besides straight up changing the algorithms to promote non-decisive content, these are a couple things I think could help:
- Limit the spread of information in general in favor of content created by the people you follow
- Un-personalize advertising
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m sure they could develop a classifier that would catch most (~90%) of political content, and make it opt-in - if people want to see it they can, but it could be hidden by default. This would be my preferred approach, so that I can use it for connecting with people but avoid listening to everyone’s political outrage.
You could build this as a browser extension... Call it "de-politics", and have it scan the HTML of popular sites (facebook, twitter, etc) and simply collapse/hide all content matching some filter. I bet a simple keyword filter for names of politicians could catch 90%. I wonder if people would pay for it?
If you work at Facebook, your work directly or indirectly supports Facebook's political decisions. Facebook just doesn't want you to talk about it. Because Mark and the executives make the decisions, and you're just supposed to follow orders. This is how it works at many other companies. But for a long time, Facebook was able to recruit people to work their by promising that they could 'change the world' and 'make a difference.'
Side note: One of Facebook's board members apparently enjoys the company of white supremacists. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24444704 Will Facebook employees be allowed to talk about that? If you work at Facebook, how do you feel about that?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd give that about 10 minutes before someone started claiming that their baby was immune to covid, and then you're right back where you started.
Don’t be friends with those people
In Facebook, there are only "friends". So, if you don't like what they are always carrying on about, don't have them as a friend. Just like in real life.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
political views !== who you think deserves human rights
And this is the reason things have changed so much: Step 1: first, identify truly evil people (like self-avowed white supremacists) Step 2: find a unfalsifable or weak method to associate non-evil people with the evil ones. Step 3: once this method becomes part of the zeitguist, infer the association implies agreement. Step 4: once agreement is assumed when stating the association, imply the person's agreement is in…
I wonder if there are resources on creating divisions. It's a very interesting social science topic.
How about bringing the same rules to the wider FB? I just want to look at baby pictures and connect with friends. I don't want to be part of a machinery that spreads misinformation and conspiracy theories.
You're swearing off the internet entirely?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But isn't that only happening because of FB allowing disinformation to spread so easily?
Curious how you think it's possible for FB to prevent the spread of disinformation? Everyone likes to pretend like Facebook has the ability to just stop disinformation, when in reality, even defining "disinformation" is basically impossible. Sure, you can bring up examples of blatant lies, but most of the effective disinformation is a lot more subtle and depends on what side of the issues you are on.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And this is the reason things have changed so much: Step 1: first, identify truly evil people (like self-avowed white supremacists) Step 2: find a unfalsifable or weak method to associate non-evil people with the evil ones. Step 3: once this method becomes part of the zeitguist, infer the association implies agreement. Step 4: once agreement is assumed when stating the association, imply the person's agreement is in…
Yup. This is worthy of a top comment. That’s exactly how it works. Things will never get better if everyone keeps ostracizing people they disagree with. My family is Republican, Libertarian, and Democrat. No greens yet, but it wouldn’t surprise me. We have great conversations and no one thinks anyone is Hitler or Pol Pot. I really hope the current zeitgeist dies a quick death.
I’m jealous of you and angry at the rise of unabashed white supremacy in my circles