The Riots in France Are What Happens When Facebook Changes It Algorithm | Hacker News Reader

The Riots in France Are What Happens When Facebook Changes It Algorithm

buzzfeednews.com

25 pointsuxhack30 comments

> [...] is a beast born almost entirely from Facebook

No, it's not. Yes, a lot of the communication circulate through social media (like most things nowadays), but the movement was also covered a lot in traditional medias at the very beginning of the movement.

It is also completely disregarding that there was a lot of movement "against the government"/a specific law before this specific movement (train worker, public hospital workers, students, ...) and that protest have become more and more violent in recent years (with a big increase during the labor law from the previous president).

Maybe Facebook help people organize and in some case radicalize. But you have to be completely oblivious to the current state of France politics to not have seen the problem brewing.

Yes, but they're arguing that those movements were "under control". Meaning nobody knew, nobody cared.

When Paris was shut down for 4 days due to student protest for Macron's new labor laws, it lasted on the front page of "Le Monde" for about 3 hours. Agriculture protests ? Not a peep. Taxi protests ? A mention. Public sector strikes ? Mention. Students again ... and again ... and again ? Not much at all. And yet all of these were massive protests. Tens of thousands of people at least.

Essentially, there has been protests against Macron's policies with a huge strike every 2 months at least (and every month in the last year). But reading the media you would never know this.

And of course, the net result of the censorship is that protestors know: they need to grab international attention ... or just go home. Well the "gilets jaune" have gotten international attention. By massive turnouts, and by violence. Is this bad ? Well, yes, but nobody in government can say this is the least bit surprising.

One example I thought was particularly glaring was the "yellow vests" going outside of France proper. This was 3 weeks into this protest. Nothing in the local newspapers whatsoever. Then suddenly a message "half the country's police force (not just the city's) deployed to Charleroi because 3 yellow vests seen". Wait, what ? Why the hell would the police do that ? Well, now we know. And even now, the reporting about the extent of the protests is ... well let's just say it doesn't match what Twitter and Youtube are (effectively) reporting. From the cities I know, I must say, especially the Youtube videos looks quite convincing, and I don't think at all this is fake news. But you won't find the extent of the protests in the newspapers even today.

So I must say, one gets the feeling rather strongly a significant portion of the government complaints is about the government first gaining, then losing the ability to censor information about social protests. They want to prevent information spreading through facebook/twitter/youtube/...

I don't feel they should get that power. At all. Not even if there are violent incidents during the protests, because let's face facts here: the government doesn't care about the violence. They care about the protests becoming public knowledge.

And keeping a Goldman Sach's banker in power.

There is something about the Facebook platform that encourages thoughtless distribution of incorrect and violent ideas. I don't say this lightly; a certain subset of users seem to get hooked on the propogation of "viral crazy," with no regard to the factual accuracy of their posts, or the real world consequences of their ideas.

I believe what happens is that people become "gamified." They use the logic of video games; going after points/likes, and gaining immense satisfaction when they are victorious.

The power of gamification shouldn't be underestimated. Especially when it combines with personal identity, as it does on Facebook.

Gambling addiction can destroy lives; Facebook uses the same psychology, and combines it with personal identity. Most people are not very vulnerable to gambling addiction. The same is true with Facebook gamification. However, certain people are highly vulnerable, and have become victims of those vulnerabilities.

Reddit has a lot of similar dynamics, you get karma for submissions and comments. Depending on the subreddits you post to you get very different feedback. Try to debunk or contradict any conspiracy theory in /r/conspiracy or say something negative about donald trump in one of its fan sub reddits and observe the reaction. The good thing, as you observe, is that there it is not directly tied to your real identity, which means you can appear to be a relatively normal sysadmin in real life and be the moderator of a host of morally corrupt subreddits. On the other hand ideally you are not as invested in a particular account, even though reddit tries hard to counteract this with reddit gold and various trophies.

Maybe it's the people that use most/all social media platforms the most often tend to use it for distribution of incorrect and violent ideas? I don't really know if they platforms encourage it, or that people who do it just tend to do it, regardless.

I know HN is on a Facebook media train right now, but blaming them for the widespread discontent in France that's been simmering for years is disingenuous.

Exactly. Although facebook has the power to change mainstream politics on long timescales, claiming that all those protests are products of AI brainwashing is just wrong.

Even more so, instead of touching on why facebook should be a host of information but not a communications modulator, this article, like many others, insists that Facebook should brain-wash and manipulate people the way they like, not the way they do now, because that's the "right" thing.

The key question is what responsibility does facebook have ? If it is just a platform, or does it carry the same responsibility a newspaper would have to a reader's letter ?

They have to choose one of the two, publish their decision, and act accordingly.

Honestly the real problem is that they pose as a raw communications medium while they are definitely not one. Facebook has political, cultural and financial interests according to which they filter your communications. Even if they say "we alter your data stream" somewhere in their ULA, they are still dishonest as they do it in a way that convinces you thay the effect is small while in fact it is not.

One more consideration: editorialized newspapers are fine, because all readers get the same paper and and work out the bias. If the bias is extreme or blatant lies are circulated, public discourse will lead to consequences for the publisher. With facebook, filtering is so pervasive, elegant and fleeting that you can't tell what's done on purpose and what isn't (a design goal imho).

So I'd say that even if Facebook publicly declared itself to be a heavily edutorialized publisher, without a way to know the bias, they shouldn't be allowed to operate on a personalized content basis, because unless they publish their feed algorithm and a way to verify it works as it's supposed to, there's no way to know if they are acting maliciously.

The main complaint of the article seems to be that it’s allowing individuals and local media outlets have a political voice in france again.

This builds on the trend that was started when Lee Harvey Oswald shot JFK because of fake news he read on Facebook.

Was disappointed that one of the comments was marked as dead on this thread.

It contained an important point (if in isolation):

"Since the rioters are protesting a Green Tax, the media (and HN) concludes that Facebook, Russia, or a general lack of cognitive ability among the French working class must be the cause."

Barring the self sabotaging dig at HN, treating peoples concerns as incoherent provokes escalation, which appears to be the case in France. The popular culture war likely reduces to traditional class lines, and history tends to treat managerial elites who develop contempt for their workers rather badly.

Between the Guardian and other newspapers forfeiting their credibility for cheap political points, and the troubling view that filter bubbles and social media censorship create a simulation that props up an increasingly unpopular elite, sites like BuzzFeed should act like they have a sense of proportion.

Surely Marie Antoinette had no idea what she would be remembered for either. If only someone could have got through to her.

lol facebook changing an algorithm causes riots to break out in various places in the world? No other accountability to be doled out-- just that evil algorithm! One danger of the AI era is the stupidity seen in this title and article -- people no longer thinking for themselves or believing in themselves.

Over the past week I’ve seen maybe 3 or 4 articles about why social media or X are to blame for people protesting / acting irrational (inferred) yet not a single article with interviews from protesters asking them why it’s happening, or exploring the merits of their grievances.

I saw the same thing here in the US in 2016. Lots of talk about Facebook, and nothing about the dramatically shifting economics of the middle class.

They call us “elites” and “globalist” for a reason.

It’s traditional to blame the government for widespread rioting. I guess social media platforms are a convenient alternative scapegoat.

(To be clear, I think FB’s role in brexit and trump was unforgivable, but at least for trump, it’s clear most of the blame lies at the feet of the democrats. Ignoring trump, the candidate they ran was by far the least popular in US history, according to polls during and after the primaries)

This article makes a lot of assertions, and doesn't even try to substantiate them.

So, Facebook tweaked its algorithm and local Anger Groups spread across French Facebook at a shocking speed.

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc, Buzzfeed?

Oh come on! The French don’t need no Facebook for a good riot.

“... and when local radio stations and newspapers invite the protest organizers on to their programs to help share their petitions hosted on change.org and MesOpinions”

I think the headline should be extended.

Can we change the title to the actual article's title? The HN one is extremely inflammatory.

Yes, when you let the peasants talk to each other, they do tend to sometimes organize revolts.

Most people don't realize that Russian propaganda started with alternative medicine (anti-big-pharma), anti-vax and detox before it started pushing for any agenda. The goal is destabilization and poisoning of public discourse.

What bothers me about the coverage of the riots is so far I have seen no one offer an opinion on whether the rioters' complaints have merit.

If the rioters were protesting racism or homophobia, no one in the media (or HN) would challenge them.

Since the rioters are protesting a Green Tax, the media (and HN) concludes that Facebook, Russia, or a general lack of cognitive ability among the French working class must be the cause.

Look no further than the discussion yesterday re: "Is France losing its first information war?" to see all the "enlightened" HN posters discuss how free expression should be limited if it runs contrary to their worldview (characterized as "restricting the public's potential to be misinformed")...the same posters of course are constantly aghast at censorship in China

Its really scary to see hackers become advocates for censorship

I just read this from the Guardian's Paris chief, thought it was a pretty good sampling of some of the grievances:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/dec/07/macrons-arroga...

Seems a common complaint is that Macron looks great from abroad, but he's ignoring the people at home.

Also worth checking this tweet from the French government account:

https://twitter.com/gouvernementFR/status/107096383300978278...

"Protest is a right, but let's do it properly.", overlayed on montage clips of good protesters and bad protesters.

Finally, the recent images of students being made to kneel with hands behind their heads by riot police is not going down well anywhere.

Can someone from France comment on how much of the grievances are based on truth?

> “Macron’s first move in office was to slash the wealth tax for the mega-rich while cutting money from poor people’s housing benefits,”

Did that really happen?

On the wealth tax - yes.

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

Part of Macron's reforms. But not a good look, in hindsight.

And the benefit cuts didn't go down well, either.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jul/24/housing-benefi...

The article says:

  To hear the protesters tell it, they’re marching through
  the streets to fight back against rising fuel prices and
  the high cost of living in the country. Beyond that,
  though, it’s an ideological free-for-all. Fights have
  also been witnessed among demonstrators, and some have
  sent death threats to other protesters.

In other words, there are a large number of different groups protesting under the same banner. There is not an identifiable leader articulating a single agenda that can be proven or disproven.

Certainly, fuel taxes in Europe are much higher than in America; across the EU they vary from 51% to 68%, with France at 64% [1].

Other things in the article, like anti-vaxxers and a theory the french constitution has been invalidated, seem much less likely - but when the entire movement is just a leaderless movement of people posting in facebook groups, where do you draw the line between "the rioters' complaints" and a handful of fools among the many protesters?

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/dec/03/are-the-french...

It really worries me about if we know the implications of the algorithms that are been used. I don't think that this is what FB intended, but more thought needs to be given to affects of algorithms.

I think the tie between the protests and the algorithm changes are tenuous at best. Who can say if the protests would have happened without Facebook? Paris and France have a long history of protests besides.

“Normal stuff happens due to Facebook” should really be the onion take here.

Suppose there’s a headline “50% of birthday parties are planned on Facebook” - does that mean Facebook is suddenly responsible for all those birthday parties? Or are they normal events that happen to be planned on Facebook these days?

Facebook has changed people's behaviour. The amount of people that wish me well on my birthday has greatly increased due to Facebook making it is easier to do so. On the other hand Facebook has made it easier to spread information. With this increase in power does the platform have an extra responsibility ?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com