Hacker News Reader

Comment by EricE | Hacker News Reader

Some "whistleblower" - seems to think big tech doesn't do enough censorship :p

Talk about a wolf in sheeps clothing.

The recurring argument she makes is just that stop using algorithmic content discovery that optimizes engagement because it correlates so strongly with extremism. You could almost get rid of all moderation and just go to chronological and it would improve the public health dimension.

I wish there was an option to make my Facebook feed chronological like there is with twitter.

There used to be that option. First it was default, then they switched it to opt-in, then they switched it to opt-in-repeatedly (every visit would default back to algorithm-curated), then they finally killed the chronological option.

"stop using algorithmic content discovery that optimizes engagement because it correlates so strongly with extremism"

Is there a meaningful difference between what Newsfeed is doing vs what the news director at say Fox News, MSNBC, et al?

Is there a meaningful difference between this one terrible thing and these other terrible things?

I would say both are bad and should stop.

whataboutism aside, the ehrlich quote

"To err is human, but to really foul things up you need a computer".

is salient, the news channels do eventually get okayed by human editors.

Another salient point is how personalized the content can get with algorithms at the helm, everybody has a button that will set them off. Mass broad cast media is going to be further from the mark than something machine learning found.

[0] https://forums.linuxmint.com/viewtopic.php?t=280241

My intention was less "what about this other bad thing" and more do we have an objective/consensus answer on what content should be promoted, or is it just who/what is doing the promotion.

The recurring claim is that going back to an unpromoted, chronological listing as it is a good concession to how it's literally mathematically impossible to algorithmically determine the truthfulness of statements.

Facebook already controls the feed algorithm. Suggesting a change does not imply more or less censorship than what we currently have.

> seems to think big tech doesn't do enough censorship

It's worse than that. The "whistleblower" thinks that world governments don't mandate enough censorship of big tech - i.e. they're not doing their part to enable the regulatory capture that entrenches the established players.

this isn’t about censorship. It is about newsfeed algorithms which optimize “engagement”. As it turns out negative, controversial and divisive stuff is more engaging.

It is about censorship. The Biden admin has repeatedly made it obvious they don't think FB etc are deleting enough and the feds will have to step in soon.

I agree that Biden admin is all about censorship. But, after watching her interview, it doesn’t look to me that this whistleblower is.

It's about the negative externalities of engagement optimization.

you realize that most controversial, negative and divisive stuff is pushed by corporate media 24/7, right?

Both are a problem

It is a recursive problem when you take into account how much power journalists have in shaping and vetting content on social media. As an example, this is why half of you in the US think that COVID has 50% hospitalization rate, while the other half thinks masks are entirely useless.

there will always be something to "what about"

You misunderstood. I am saying fb mirrors and amplifies external trends

It is entirely possible that big tech doesn't do enough censorship.

Compared to the broadcast media that preceded it, there's nothing even remotely approaching the obscene, indecent, and profane content restrictions the FCC imposes.

I'm not personally convinced FCC-level restrictions are necessary, but the question is a fair one to ask (and will be asked, again and again, forever... Such is the nature of media and society).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com