1. exactly what content is misinformation and what is not
2. exactly what content creates political division
3. exactly what content harms children's mental health
If you want Facebook to "do something about these" you're asking Facebook (in reality a poorly paid human moderator or an ML model) to become the arbiter of each these for billions of users worldwide. Do you really want that?
If we rephrased the GP post slightly it would say something about creating a system of incentives that, knowingly or not, created these outcomes. It's in fact entirely possible the current system was implemented with no ill intent. The creation of the system itself isn't, as such, the critique. Rather, the critique is how they, after seeing what the outcome of the system is, choose to keep it in place.
These things are complex and unpredictable and fixing it isn't as simple as setting a boolean flag. What we want to see is the public realization from the executives at Facebook that what they're doing is harming vast amounts of people and a decisive commitment to concrete, proactive, and fundamental changes to the system. All of this backed up by short-term visible results in both the short-term and long-term behavior of the system and company.
I see it as either we allow all content or no content regardless of the effect, any other method has facebook (or again a human moderator or ML model) deciding whats okay and not okay for our eyeballs to see. I don't want that.
We can't depend on tech companies to fix human societal issues. People have been spreading misinformation on the radio and tv, political division by partisan "news" sites, and children's mental health is affected when they compare themselves to peers in school. We can't blame facebook for these. The reality of the situation is that if Facebook makes any changes everyone will jump ship to another platform and the cycle will continue.
But they're already doing this at massive scale with their algorithm. The issue is that the content they think is "okay" is the most inflammatory and tribal, because it generates the most interaction. If the idea is to let people have all the information and decide for themselves what's true and what's not, that's not what's happening now. What's happening now for many people is that the marketplace of ideas is restricted to bias-confirming conspiracy theories, and no other information is allowed to be seen by those people.
Their algorithm is just identifying content that lots of people interact with and then it boosts that to a larger audience. That content happens to be inflammatory and tribal content because people, unsurprisingly, like interacting with that sort of content.
If people didn't interact with it, it wouldn't get boosted. So ultimately its society's fascination with inflammatory and tribal content that causes the algorithm to boost it.
Again people pretend like facebook somehow looks at a picture and says "wow this person is attractive, wouldn't it be nice to affect someone's mental health by showing this to them so they can compare themselves?" Thats not how it works.
It also sounds like the most important aspect to you is their intent? Like, did they mean to censor something, or were they just trying to increase engagement?
So let’s say an engineer comes up one day and says, hey boss, I did some A/B testing with three different algorithms: “A” is just a chronological timeline, but B and C each use a different method of boosting and suppressing content. B increases engagement with some users but also drives away some users altogether. C shows content that generates fewer engagement “hot spots” but shows higher user retention. And the boss says, we’re in it for the long haul; let’s go with C! By the way, what’s it do? And the engineer says, well, an AI is trained to look for posts containing political opinions outside the mainstream and shows a cat picture in the timeline instead. Guess it turns out people really like cats.
So would that be ok? After all, in this hypothetical situation their intent isn’t to harm anyone; it’s just to increase their user base and make more money.
Something like half of the alcohol industry's revenue comes from people drinking at levels dangerous to their health.
They aren't a common carrier, they are the platform that decides what rises and does not. And their priorities indicate they aren't moral.
hum... not in France
If they had a purely linear chronological feed then a lot of these problems would vastly diminish.
If you have an interest in retro Casio watch collecting, showing you review videos for retro Casio watches would be relevant.
But … would it get you “engaged” as much as showing you biased political videos with outrage inducing clickbait titles?
Facebook’s algorithm is like an orchestra conductor. By its choice of content it chooses to show Facebook users, it guides the actions of its users. It’s main goal is to guide its users into sticking around for as long as possible - which while is somewhat manipulative, most people aren’t too bothered by that.
Unfortunately their algorithm’s choice of content has been discovered to have other more unpleasant side effects … and Facebook isn’t willing to sacrifice profit by having its algorithm suggest stuff that’s just as relevant to a user, without the unpleasant side effects, but less “engaging”.
In the shorten 60 minutes interview, I believe the whistleblower mentioned that Facebook leading up to the 2020 election actually clamp down on its algorithm fearing things could going south but lifted the measures after the election was over … then we got 6th Jan 2021.
but honestly, I think the US government should cap the amount of ads or money a candidate can spend, the ads you're getting on facebook is really the symptom of a much deeper issue.
Removing the recommendation engine from Youtube is something that would be a net positive for the world.
I didn't really get the iphone when it first came out. And I didn't get Facebook.
Then my "aha" moment was that Facebook was like email, but looser - you could post your holiday photos on it, without thinking who to send them to, and your friends could see them and chime in if they were interested.
Facebook was post-email. Mind blown!
But Facebook is not that thing anymore. It's now a vicious cesspool of outrage-inducing rubbish, peppered with inane vapid memes.
Obviously that's what people want, but people want a lot of things that they aren't really proud of. Most of us like a bit of gossip, even if we wouldn't like to be described as a gossiper. I personally find myself unhealthily drawn to stories about anti-vaxxers who are begging for the vaccine from their deathbeds. An unworthy part deep inside me thinks "serve you right". I am not proud of that.
Facebook now panders to our lowest, ickiest instincts.
And in doing so, it legitimises those icky instincts, and starts us feeling like those instincts aren't so bad. Then our behaviour gets worse. Next thing on the slippery slope, we're marching to the Capitol, part of an armed insurrection.
Not a lover of regulation at all, but something has to give. Our society cannot survive bottom dwelling AI leeches like Facebook.