Hacker News Reader

Yes, in the developing world it is the source of most of the hate campaign.

It was okay when we could just see our friends activities now it's just a hate wagon

It was good early on. So was Instagram. I think the beginning of the downfall was the like button for Facebook and the heart for Instagram. Once you introduce a voting system that determines what gets exposure and what gets buried, it seems like the inevitable outcome is that the garbage floats to the top. Especially as things scale to include huge groups of people.

I think with Facebook there's another problem of "you may not be in the huge group of people", and you may not be even aware of the particular floating garbage. Not only you only are fed with the garbage from your social group, but also are basically deprived of the other groups' views.

Is it the source of hate campaigns though? Or is it the medium the hate campaigns are using to spread their message? Because I believe it's the latter, and if you ban it, the hate campaigns don't vanish, they just start using other mediums.

>Because I believe it's the latter, and if you ban it, the hate campaigns don't vanish, they just start using other mediums.

While true that it may not be a source per se, Facebook enables those ideas whereas they would normally (at least, in the past) be relegated to the darkest corners of the web.

Take QAnon for example. The source is 8kun, which is accessible only through Tor and consisting of incel and white supremacist communities. Do you think the majority of people posting this material are getting it from the source in this case?

I believe that they use Facebook because it's easy to use, not because it's the only available option outside the dark web. That is to say if Facebook removed them, they'd switch to some other platform.

Might slow them down (won't have FB's built-in audience), but not nearly as much as only being available on the dark web. Hate campaigns worked pre-internet, and they'll still work post-FB. Maybe not as efficient, but I don't think efficiency is the limiting problem there.

True, but those other mediums would not work quite as well, so we would likely be better off.

Facebook at its core is a green list of people or voices you approve of. Any misinformation, hatred, or groupthink... is coming from the world you approve.

And with regards to groupthink, there is surely some basic level of personal burden arising from the freedom of association.

It doesn't matter. You can argue that "people shouldn't fall prey to groupthink" and I'd agree with you. But they do. We're talking about a group of 2.6 billion people, not an individual. On average, people are a product of their environment. And the environment, in this case, is a bad one. It promotes all the wrong things and the incentives are in all the wrong places.

the "environment" is in fact our society.

you assume the cause is facebook, when in fact facebook is the effect of a sick society.

but, facebook does help in bringing to light our abysmal failure in building society.

It is a circle. Society influences facebook, facebook feeds back into society. For example, I’m convinced facebook’s amplification of pro-brexit and pro-trump messages in those campaigns was instrumental in their victory. No facebook, no president trump. I’ve also seen how facebook turned my sister into an anti-vaxxer.

In essence you can look at facebook as a platform for information warfare. It tends to amplify lies, and some forces are more able to exploit that.

It is your sister. You probably talk to her. Try convincing her. If you fail, is the Facebook to be blamed? I do not think so.

Yes. Because what is one voice (even family) vs the 100s of voices and constant reaffirmation of lies and misinformation.

I do agree but perhaps Facebook hastens a journey that some users were already on, towards more socially destructive behaviour. Perhaps the social proof of seeing those users encourages others to join on that path?

Ultimately though i agree with your point which means even if i am right in thinking Facebook accelerates and encourages bad practices - it doesn’t matter because responsibility lives with each user, each individual.

People are weak, ignorant and distracted. In a well functioning society, systems, including Facebook, have to be designed to compensate for, rather than exploit those characteristics.

> ...perhaps Facebook hastens a journey that some users were already on...

My suspicion is that we had built up guard rails that were somewhat effective in mitigating against the vulnerable falling completely into the cracks. We should have been doing better, but they were somewhat effective.

I do think you’re spot on that one of its issues is that it encourages other vulnerable folks to join the path leading over the edge. And it makes it significantly easier for the predators to lure them.

While all of us would like to believe we’re special, a large part of who we are comes from our inputs, while a lot of us are careful to vet what inputs we allow to plug into us, many of our people are absolutely not careful whatsoever–many are absolutely and thoroughly addicted to outrage (picture how many people we see who are constantly outraged about something which will never impact their personal lives whatsoever), combine that outrage addiction with the ability to weaponize mis/disinformation, and then combine this with the fact that everyone now has a megaphone, and then combine this with the fact that platforms like fb want to amp up that outrage addiction in order to secure it’s place on these people’s input hierarchies—take all of that, add in a mess of other pressures such our society’s refusal to address very real problems, and we can start to get a small glimpse of the ways in which fb’s algorithms are causing major problems.

That's not true though is it? You see things in your feed from people other than your "friends" (ad content, friends of friends, businesses, news pages and "news" pages)

Yes but mixed in with "pictures of your vacation" there's a reshare from disinformation pages

You almost have it. It’s not fundamentally Facebook that is broken. It’s the “curated feed”... by becoming responsible for what users see they become responsible for the effects of this curation. In the old-old days when the “feed” was just stuff from the people you deliberately added yourself. Yes there was garbage but it wasn’t spread around algorithmically in order to help increase Facebook engagement and therefore their revenues.

This was why I was so disappointed when Twitter switched the default page to the global algorithmically curated feed. The change from deliberate control by users saying “I want more of this” over to automatic and algorithmically driven control where the platform begins saying “we think you’ll like this, that, and a bunch of this extra thing because other people also like it” is the crossing of the rubicon. Once on the other side they are now undeniably responsible for the results.

What you say of its fundamental goal can be said of any other newspaper or any source of information.

Exactly. For-profit social media and news media are both chock-full of perverse incentives.

The only solution I can think of is to somehow promote the use of non-profit providers, but I know of no good/usable ones in either case. For news, there are individual, independent bloggers, and for social media there are closed chat groups or something, but that's about it.

That's not the solution at all. Many of current media like Breitbart/Fox as well CNN/MSNBC leverage a fundamental bug in human psyche: emotional and shocking content keeps our attention! So these media try to hype/spice/misinform as long as it gets attention. You cannot counteract it by non-profits providing boring news.

I don't know if there is any solution at all. I expect both sides to maximize spiced up news delivery for maximal attention and devotee base. At equilibrium, we may have these equally weighted strong groups which may randomly win election by small margin each time. This might not be too bad because over longer term all decisions and laws would be averaged out over two opposing philosophies resulting in overall centrist and balanced system.

It'd certainly be a start if there were at least some good alternatives for people to use. It wouldn't solve the problem, but at least there'd be an opening for norms and viewing habits to change a little.

No, a traditional newspaper optimizes for number of subscribers/readers, not for time spent reading the newspaper. It's online ads that change the equation.

Traditional newspapers all rely on online ads these days

I agree with your line of thinking, but on what law can we base the notation that a platform that designed to give more exposure to provocative and polarizing content shouldn't exist?

Shower thought: we've been (some countries more some less, some earlier some later) in a collective physical lockdown which was challenging to deal with but most people coped with it just fine. Surely, technology helped we had our entertainment and we managed to maintain some social bonds with friends and family via video.

What if we engineer an "information lockdown"? Three months of no internet, no TV, only word of mouth communication of official billboards at the local level.

Would we cope with that just fine? Would it help us learn somethings about us and learn to appreciate things, as the physical lock down has done for some things (like cooking, time with family, etc)

You could use the same tactics that were used to discourage smoking: forbid it for minors, force them to display a "health" warning banner, start a public health campaign shaming people for using it, etc.

They could give them anything more than minuscule slaps on the wrist for their long list of transgressions:

1. Anti competitive behavior

2. Advertising fraud (incredible how frequently their view/click counters are found to have bugs which consistently benefit FB)

3. Privacy violations (shadow profiles esp for minors)

There are dozens of bases upon which Facebook can be punished for being a horrendous contribution to society.

> Facebook, as a platform, has enabled mass amounts of misinformation, hatred, and groupthink, to the point of becoming a serious concern for our democracy

I don't disagree, but I've wondered why that doesn't lead to people using it less?

One thing I've noticed is people care a lot less about misinformation favorable to their point of view. I've only see people angry about it against their perspective.

Another observation is that people get upset about the most egregious & outrageous lies. I've actually wondered how dangerous those are. Someone willing to believe Obama wasn't born in the United States probably was going to vote against him no matter what. They've made up their mind & are just looking to now justify their decision.

I think the more dangerous points are things that are right on the line of truth/fiction.

Facebook, like a knife, is a tool. And like most tools, humans will find the most destructive way to use a tool.

Replace "Facebook" with "the Internet" and this whole statement still reads correctly

This is equivalent to saying the world is full of evil and pain, the world should not exist.

I don't understand why you think the world was better before Facebook and you definitely don't have the proof

Except, Facebook is nothing like the world.

I'm legitimately concerned Americans don't realize how incredibly perfect Facebook is for hijacking the democratic process. It's actually frightening to watch how it's being used.

Yes it's affecting all countries and democracies but looking at where America was pre 2016 to now, it's really quite tragic.

this makes very little sense to me, when I first came to America I could hear conservatives constantly complaining that the media has a very heavy liberal bias. Media constantly denied it obviously.

Now with Facebook and social networks conservatives have their own information distribution system which cannot be controlled by the mainstream media, so the obvious criticism is "hijacking of the democratic process".

Think about it though, you can build a network with fake accounts or even just through a concerted effort to to do and spread disinformation, conspiracy theories and hate, polarise a nation and influence elections.

It’s social networks weaponised and it’s absolutely beautiful by design, convenient, free and here is the real kicker? It’s completely legal and largely unregulated !!!

By the way, I’m not on either political side here but are you trying to say I’m sticking up for republicans ?

facebook is the state, try and stop it. we’ve been conquered. why should government be constrained by geography in the digital era?

If Facebook goes away another service takes it place. That's the nature of capitalism. Unless the concept of social media is explicitly outlawed then how does that solve anything?