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

81–90 of 149 posts

Re: Facebook removed the news feed algorithm in an experiment

#81

Post by threeseed »

jaywalk wrote: post #63
lanerobertlane wrote: post #32

When people argue against the 'news feed algorithm' they mean anything other than a reverse chronological feed of posts from the people they follow. status updates, and interactions between people/pages you both follow. This article mentions that they turned the news feed off but people were still hiding posts from pages they don't follow, which friends had commented on. These shouldn't appear in a news feed that is…

It seems Facebook is so far up their own ass that they actually think this "no algorithm" test they did is what people are clamoring for.

Except that it is exactly what people have been asking for:

Simple reverse chronological order feed with no ranking.

Re: Facebook removed the news feed algorithm in an experiment

#82

Post by winternett »

lanerobertlane wrote: post #32

When people argue against the 'news feed algorithm' they mean anything other than a reverse chronological feed of posts from the people they follow. status updates, and interactions between people/pages you both follow. This article mentions that they turned the news feed off but people were still hiding posts from pages they don't follow, which friends had commented on. These shouldn't appear in a news feed that is…

Also, if the user base is conditioned to seeing things and posting things to serve a particular type of timeline, it's not easy for everyone to transition to a completely different method and for that method to stabilize/work quickly.

When Facebook started changing their timeline and messing up the chronological order of posts it had a really strange effect on reality. Old news stories and posts were showing up for many months late, and they were reminding people about their pets that died years before as well, many people have forgotten that.

The best option would be to abandon the ideal that one single news feed is best for everyone and give control back to users along with an option for a truly chronological time line. Thy should also make multiple pages that rank posts based on taxonomy that users can browse content that is most liked by everyone on the platform.

The only reason why Facebook wants to be able to have singular time lines is so that they can push targeted ads without it becoming obvious to their user base, but if the taxonomy pages were titled and organized properly, the ads would be somewhat more relevant by nature, and not require them to invade everyone's privacy like they have been doing thus far.

Re: Facebook removed the news feed algorithm in an experiment

#83

Post by cmorgan31 »

Consultant32452 wrote: post #80
azinman2 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

YTs recommendations are infamous for getting people radicalized, into conspiracy theories, and filled with misinformation.

I'm highly skeptical of those claims. This seems mostly like wild claims from legacy media that doesn't want you to watch streaming video. Yes, I'm familiar with the relevant studies.

Which legacy media is not making a streaming migration effort currently with enough sway to manipulate the narrative? I'm not aware of any major players not moving to svod or avod in the US.

Re: Facebook removed the news feed algorithm in an experiment

#84

Post by Damogran6 »

tomjen3 wrote: post #36
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…

Maybe we were just younger and had friends who did cooler things?

The younger cooler people aren't on Facebook

Re: Facebook removed the news feed algorithm in an experiment

#85

Post by threeseed »

azinman2 wrote: post #46
munk-a wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 topi…

YTs recommendations are infamous for getting people radicalized, into conspiracy theories, and filled with misinformation.

Youtube's algorithm for me is a perfect example of what a poor ranking algorithm looks like.

I subscribe to a number of mainstream, local news feeds as well as our government's daily COVID updates. And ocassionally I will do a Google search for random terms. And yet somehow at least a few times a week I will be recommended some obscure news source often indeed with conspiracy or some ultra-right wing edge.

I very much sympathise with the challenge that Facebook's data scientists have to deal with. Incredible hard problem to solve.

Re: Facebook removed the news feed algorithm in an experiment

#86

Post by threeseed »

Consultant32452 wrote: post #80
azinman2 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

YTs recommendations are infamous for getting people radicalized, into conspiracy theories, and filled with misinformation.

I'm highly skeptical of those claims. This seems mostly like wild claims from legacy media that doesn't want you to watch streaming video. Yes, I'm familiar with the relevant studies.

It literally happens to me every week.

It's easy to tell that it's happening because you will see obscure, random news/opinions channels with high view counts. Something you can only get when you at some point have been promoted by Youtube.

Re: Facebook removed the news feed algorithm in an experiment

#87

Post by pishpash »

timbit42 wrote: post #52
lanerobertlane wrote: post #32

When people argue against the 'news feed algorithm' they mean anything other than a reverse chronological feed of posts from the people they follow. status updates, and interactions between people/pages you both follow. This article mentions that they turned the news feed off but people were still hiding posts from pages they don't follow, which friends had commented on. These shouldn't appear in a news feed that is…

FBPurity is a browser plugin that lets you decide what to see on FB. You can decide to only see what friends post and not what they like, share, or comment on, etc.

Doesn't seem to work, won't filter out Sponsored posts despite the option being selected...

Re: Facebook removed the news feed algorithm in an experiment

#88

Post by wintermutestwin »

jjulius wrote: post #27
fsflover wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 b…

>How is such a platform staying online without charging users or using advertiser money?

The resources required to provide the world with the valuable parts of these services are small enough to be funded through non-profits or benefit corporations. I'd gladly donate my time and money to a 501c3 facebook killer.

Re: Facebook removed the news feed algorithm in an experiment

#89

Post by coffeefirst »

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.

It depends what you mean by “prefer.” I would prefer straight chronological even if I spend less time on it and click like fewer times.

Re: Facebook removed the news feed algorithm in an experiment

#90

Post by zepto »

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.

Smokers strongly prefer cigarettes.
Post reply on HN