Hacker News Reader

I read pretty widely in what I would call mainstream media, progressive and conservative (within limits).

I don't want to get my news from Facebook, so I routinely ask to "see less" of almost all politics, especially regarding Trump. There's almost never anything I wouldn't have learned about by reading mainstream news.

Here's the remarkable thing - this doesn't seem to be affecting my feed at all. I get as much politics as ever. I couldn't tell you how many times I've informed Facebook not to show me Trump news, and it's still there, lots of it. I'm starting to wonder if maybe pushing the "show less" button is akin to replying to a spammer to please don't send any spam, or perhaps pushing on a button next to a crosswalk that actually doesn't do anything, but makes people less likely to jaywalk by giving them the illusion of control.

Why am I even on the site? Well, I'm on Facebook because I like hearing about the various musical, theater, and arts events any of my friends and acquaintances are involved in. I'm not delighted that Facebook essentially controls our communication with each other - there was a time this tended to happen on the open web, rather than within the walls of a corporation, but I guess that's a topic for another day.

> Here's the remarkable thing - this doesn't seem to be affecting my feed at all. I get as much politics as ever. I couldn't tell you how many times I've informed Facebook not to show me Trump news, and it's still there, lots of it.

During the peak toxicity of the election cycle, I unfollowed a lot of sites/sources/people on Facebook. For a while, it worked.

Eventually, though, I simply lost that ability. For the last few months, if I click "unlike" or "unfollow" on some source I'd like to be rid of, nothing happens. I'm literally unable to unfollow content on Facebook now.

If you Google around, you'll see that this is a common problem that people have been reporting for years.

This makes me wonder if this is a bug, or if, perhaps, the Facebook algorithm simply refuses to allow me to have fewer than N number of connections to other nodes or something.

http://www.fbpurity.com/

It's funny because I think exactly the opposite. One of the main reasons I don't read my Facebook feed is because it's bombarded by content I find infuriating for a variety of reasons (lots of low-value entertainment-related stuff, political content I don't agree with, etc.). I wish Facebook were a filter bubble that only served me content I like, then I wouldn't have to curate my RSS feeds myself.

[640x480 gradient image with pithy sentence]

To make a Facebook feed palatable, embrace the "Hide All From" option. Whenever you notice a piece of junk from a source page name that you've seen before, just kill everything from that source. Most chronic oversharers are only really broadcasting content from fairly few sources (the 90% rule) and it's not all that hard to mute most of it that way. I spend 10 minutes a day reading through the feed and get most of the interesting personal news from people I actually want to seee, and little of the crap. For the worst oversharers, unfollow them.

Thereby enforcing your own filter bubble ;) I have one "friend" in my feed, former colleague, and he continually shares all sorts of things that I don't remotely agree with & find pretty racist, Islamophobic etc. However, I keep him in my feed just to remind me what other people are thinking about, believing and sharing. I'm continually tempted to block him though.

Good on you for this. I firmly believe that behavior makes you more open-minded. We as a society should encourage this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

> Since you seek social approval from your friends it makes you want to argue less with others.

Since gaining entry into the US middle/professional class I have been informed numerous times that disagreeing with one's friends is impolite.

I miss the times when I could say things like "No, what you're saying is dumb" without drawing shocked stares. It was a simpler often better time.

I'm told it is particularly inappropriate to disagree with your girlfriend's mum and tell her she's spouting rubbish. Especially at a cordial thanksgiving dinner.

But if you can't argue with people and test each other's ideas, then what's the point of keeping them around?

If your friends think you're being rude when you offer a counterpoint to their opinions it's time to find better friends.

> If your friends think you're being rude when you offer a counterpoint to their opinions it's time to find better friends.

While in general friends should be able to disagree amicably, I wouldn't automatically jump to this conclusion; check how you're presenting your "counterpoint" first.

I argue with my friends all the time. To the point one of the wives threw up her hands and said her husband and I were like an old married couple.

But FB is different. It's like being in a big ballroom with all of your friends and acquaintances standing around watching you argue with one of them at the top of your lungs. It feels somehow boorish.

> Since gaining entry into the US middle/professional class I have been informed numerous times that disagreeing with one's friends is impolite.

> I miss the times when I could say things like "No, what you're saying is dumb" without drawing shocked stares.

I think you may be mistaking cultural norms about the manner of expression of disagreement with a cultural norms against disagreement generally.

“I think, if you consider X, Y, and Z, that you would find that it's more case A than case B” may get a different reaction than “No, B is dumb.”

> “I think, if you consider X, Y, and Z, that you would find that it's more case A than case B” may get a different reaction than “No, B is dumb.”

I have been told that this also is impolite in many situations. My usual approach is asking questions. People get upset when they don't have answers because they aren't used to having their beliefs questioned and don't think defending them should be necessary.

> "People get upset when they don't have answers because they aren't used to having their beliefs questioned and don't think defending them should be necessary."

This so much. Some how in the last 10 or so years we as a society have been moving towards holding beliefs that are rooted in nothing but an emotional foundation in which knowledge has no part of. Then when those beliefs are questioned by others the response of the person is to close up and get defensive, while coming to the conclusion you are ignorant or stupid for disagreeing.

When I start to disagree with people and try and have a conversation about our differences in perception on the subject, the other party always thinks I want to have an argument, but in reality I want to have a conversation. Arguments aren't about sharing knowledge, they're entered into to triumph over the other. It's as if we have lost the art of conversation.

"Arguments aren't about sharing knowledge, they're entered into to triumph over the other. It's as if we have lost the art of conversation"

Was it ever different? In particular, questioning religion used to draw angry emotional responses.

Alternatively, if you look at 1960ties, you won't find dry rational discourse. You will find people fighting and destroying each other.

In general, people don't like to be questioned even when they have answers. Sometimes people just want to have thanksgiving dinner without being put into defensive and having to argue every minor point.

When to argue and when not to is as important as knowing how.

I take your point but sometimes thanksgiving dinner is the only time uncle earl ever comes into contact with someone with a higher education.

An open expression of contempt is rude, too.

I wish the default rule would be: don't say things out loud that you don't wish to have to defend.

I mean, I don't usually try to start arguments on purpose over a family dinner. But when someone, out of their own initiative, starts talking complete nonsense and expect me to take part in that conversation, then well... I understand social objects, but I believe accuracy of beliefs is more important than talking for the sake of talking.

Yeah, it is more subtle then that. But the person I was responding to did not stroke me that way. By his own words, he questions people as usual strategy to force them into "exchange of ideas" he personally enjoys. They don't I guess. He got feedback that it come across as rude multiple times.

And unrelatedly, it is easier to find flaws and nitpick then put on theory or explanation.

It's more like "No girlfriend's mum, I will not buy into your essential oils pyramid scheme. No I promise you a homeopathic medicine cannot treat both cancer and the common cold. Yes even if it did help your friend's friend of a friend's sister's dog walker. But thank you for telepathically healing my parrot. He was in good health both before and after"

Ya know?

Do I get to vocally disagree with stuff like that even though it's thanksgiving?

Honestly, you don't. And you will have hard time vocally disagree with people who are into esoteric in general. It is also pointless unless you are super great in psychology, they want to believe so won't listen.

I definitely give you that you have it hard.

Depends. Is their enjoyment of the meal more important at that moment, to you, than you vocally expressing your view?

Write them a letter the next day. Ring them, meet up?

Sometimes we need to celebrate our commonalities, our shared humanity regardless of deep differences.

Perhaps demonstrate your dissent softly and postpone your opposition.

Is my enjoyment of the meal more important at that moment, to me, than their vocally expressing their views?

Maybe. Perhaps it's best we all just keep quiet and don't say anything for fear of opposing each other.

Or maybe the whole point of having meals together is having interesting conversations.

Much like another reply to this comment; your sentiment is one I've heard frequently, but never comes along with any supporting data. It certainly feels like a reasonable statement; but anecdotally doesn't seem to jive with what I and friends have seen.

Furthermore, I find it hard to accept that if there are bubbles on social media they are materially different than the natural geographic and social bubbles from the pre-internet age. Again another topic light on actual data to make more informed conclusions.

You make a good point. I created my hypothesis based on my own anecdotal information. I think I should try doing some community analysis on a social network to test my hypothesis. https://snap.stanford.edu/data/ looks like a good data source to try this out.

Eh, people have lots of friends that hold different beliefs than them. The problem with Facebook is it offers no way of registering your disagreement beyond commenting and starting a conversation which will have no depth because the lack of real comment threading renders any real dialogue impossible.

Since most people don't feel like repeatedly getting involved in pointless debates with their friends, and are frustrated seeing posts they disagree with without any simple way of voicing their disapproval, they either use Facebook's tools to filter out those posts or just unfollow that friend entirely.

The most misguided consumer and propagator of fake news will still mostly just see likes of their friends who are also misguided. They might get a brave friend chiming in here or there to disagree, but their comments are easily dismissed because they will have no depth. The majority of their friends may disagree, but they'll never know because those who disagree (if they haven't filtered/unfollowed them already) have no good way to show that they disagree. Facebook as it is currently designed mostly just serves to affirm whatever the user wants to believe. That's where the bubble effect comes from.

You can avoid a conversation and post in opposition. You can suggest dissent by "like-ing" with a sad or angry face.

If you make a post with an opposing view, or share someone else's then your friend group can use that opposing post to show their dissent for the initial post.

Yeah, none of those are very good options.

I seem to recall that actually the social networks create the opposite - a feeling that outliers are more normal than they are - for example that if you're a pedophile, you are alone until the internet where you suddenly have a community telling you that you are the normal one. It's not just your shame to hide anymore, you've got a support group telling you you're right. I don't remember where I read about that, it was years ago, but it seems more logical than targeted ads having a significant effect.

Now, regulated communities where karma allows you to hide opinions you disagree with so nobody can see the debate, that's a problem. It's one of the reasons people were so surprised this election.

So let's try to fix it. How though?

The only (poor) idea I have is to have a 'value' button or something. Click it if you think the comment has 'value' but is not necessarily something you 'like'. Yeah, I know, it'll be gamed and just turn into yet another thing to express downvotes with, but maybe it'll work.

Any other ideas?

Still, FB is totally dominant and they could change it in a day if they wanted to and people would come back without any other issues.

I don't know if you can fix it. Part of the problem is that people don't want to be challenged with opposing views and that is part of the human condition.

It's this just assertion or do you have backing for it. It's certainly "nice" to think that "people just bury their heads and that's why I can't convince then of my far superior position", but evidence?

I think if we agreed that not being tolerant to opinion diversity is the part of human condition we would want to have less of, we'd be moving in a right direction.

After all, there are many parts of human condition that we view as negative and are reasonably successful in controlling and reducing them. E.g. if somebody has something you want, we no longer OK with clubbing that person over the head and taking it. There are many animal and other base urges that we keep under control with reasonable degree of success. Maybe we could do it here too, if we only tried?