But that assumes a lot fluency with pinyin and the prediction system. A lot of people are missing one or both.
1,143 karma · joined July 19, 2016
Giving up control of the algorithm means giving up control of its user-products, and it's not going to do that.
You're not going to see more ads about the things you're interested in, you're going to see ads that have a higher potential to manipulate you into commercially profitable behavior. There's a big but subtle difference between those things. You are definitely not going to see ads for your interests that bring you more joy but aren't easily monetizeable.
The coarseness of TV targeting meant people had more opportunity to assert their own priorities against the less effective manipulation.
> IIRC they looked through his feed and there had been basically cries for help, but no one had seem them because Facebook was prioritizing engagement and not personal content.
Don't worry! Facebook is working on an AI to detect such posts and refer the suicidal users to help! No need to bring his friends down with his negativity and decrease their engagement! /s
I wish I was joking: https://www.theverge.com/2017/11/28/16709224/facebook-suicid.... Social networks like Facebook have contributed to a big rise in depression, but instead of course correcting, we get buzzword tech band-aids.
> Rules requiring civility don't only apply towards white men
Welcome to the cutting edge of contemporary social justice culture, significant portions of which seem to want to invert and reorganize racial/gender power structures to put themselves at the top, rather than working to actually wash them away.
They should put up a big banner of the question the employees should be asking themselves about their work activities: "Is this good for the company?"
And I'm not being totally unserious.
This empty shelves thing is enough of a thing that it seems like it's not really working.
And empty shelves sends such a terrible message to everybody who encounters them that I question the wisdom of who picked that as a "forcing function." Whenever I see that in a store, it just reeks of failure and decay.
Retail protip: don't be like Sears.
That's actually not true and not workable. A very obvious example is a criminal who identifies as a good, upstanding person.
IMHO there are actually two kinds of identity (at least). They are separate things, but related and often confused.
1. Self-identity: the identity that someone applies to themselves based on their own thoughts and aspirations. This is very closely related to one's inner life. This is the identity that you're referring to above.
2. Applied-identity (for lack of a better term): the identity that each person applies to someone else based on their own thoughts, beliefs, and experiences with that person. Someone's reputation is an example.
If you try to force everyone's applied-identity of you to conform with your self-identity, that's also a form of oppression. What and how they think of you is their own business.
Those systems also probably have more humans carefully monitoring their daily operation than any other kind of system anywhere. People really care about their money.
Yes. Everyone should install the Wayback Machine plugin and click the "save page now" whenever they find something useful or interesting:
Chrome: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/wayback-machine/fp...
Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/wayback-machi...
I hate hitting an unarchived dead-ends when doing research, so I'm trying to do my part to prevent it. Many page I've archived had never been archived before I saved them.
Facebook became dominant because it had an aura of exclusivity and successfully captured some trend-setting demographics. If it loses those, no amount of users accessing it through Free Basics is going to make up for it.
> Wrapping up, I'm sure that Facebook has identified 5-6 clear use cases of its platform. Why isn't the news feed tailored for them? I simply do not understand it. Give more of what I want, or my engagement will drop. Give me my friends posts, and a few ads in between, and I'll be a happy Facebook user, surely it can't be that hard?
You're approaching this wrong. You're not Facebook's customer, you're it's product. They don't care how you want to use it, they only care about what will keep you on it and seeing what they want you to see. They're not going to optimize their website to fit your preferences. They want to maximize their value metrics, not yours.
> Turned on grayscale in macOS(System Prefs - Accessibility - Display) before googling this articles, can confirm that still receiving dopamine hits.
It's not a solution to the whole problem, just part of the problem; specifically this part:
> “Color’s not a signal for detecting objects, it’s actually something much more fundamental: it’s for telling us what’s likely to be important,” Mr. Conway said. “If you have lots of color and contrast then you’re under a constant state of attentional recruitment. Your attentional system is constantly going, ‘Look look look over here.’ ”
These companies are manipulating every physiological knob they can. This is one, addictive dopamine hits are another.
It's kinda violating a social contract. Everyone's the product of thousands of people over thousands of generations who chose to have kids. By choosing not to have kids you also choose to not contribute the the labor force that will likely take care of you in your old age. You can say all you want about contributing money or inventions, but money is just a claim on future labor and few people's inventions are really that valuable.
Also, I've heard from locals that they're starting to relocate dirty industries to nearby cities that foreigners tend not to visit. I visited one, and there were a few days of pretty bad smog (but blue skys some days, too).
You're just picking and choosing to get the comparison you want.
Oprah went from $0 -> billionare. If she'd investive passively, she'd still have basically nothing.
Trump went from something like $500 million -> billionare. If he'd invested passively he'd be ahead.
In conclusion: Trump is a shitty businessman, which was really my only point.
> Neither is growing like Facebook or Google. These numbers aren't substantially different. Both have subpar returns.
> ... it's probably a better idea to turn off the TV and start looking at the people building companies that are actually growing.
This is weird valley-think. Those people were lucky more than anything, being in the right place, at the right time, with the right skills. They're not supermen. Running the country is not something I'd want any of them to be doing. Running a government sub-bureaucracy, maybe, but only one without much policy-making power.
I have. More specifically, I've seen a bunch of posts criticizing the criticism of her potential candidacy, basically for ruining the good vibes from after her speech. This might be another filter-bubble effect, too. I know a lot of people who are a certain kind of progressive activist.
I've seen this too: I created an empty profile once for some reason. The email account that I setup for it very quickly started getting messages like "you have 1 new notification - log in." When I did that, there wasn't a damn thing there.
I'm not excusing it, I just want to put it in stark relief because I dislike it.
Honestly, maybe invites/sponsorships? One person who care's enough to pay $10 can bring his "social graph" (or a subset) with him.
Real friendships aren't passive.
They're the product, so it doesn't matter if they get what they want or not, so long as they come back.
> Even if I pay, it's not guaranteed to hit the same audience I had before.
If it was guaranteed, what incentive would you have to pay Facebook more?
Giant monopolies that control most of it for most users?
It's like trying to corroborate a report of a crime in San Francisco by helpfully saying "Yes! I've been to San Francisco, and it is by the bay."
I characterized your snark as obnoxious not obvious.