Facebook Knows It Encourages Division. Top Executives Nixed Solutions. (wsj.com) 81
Jeff Horwitz and Deepa Seetharaman, reporting for Wall Street Journal: A Facebook team had a blunt message for senior executives. The company's algorithms weren't bringing people together. They were driving people apart. "Our algorithms exploit the human brain's attraction to divisiveness," read a slide from a 2018 presentation. "If left unchecked," it warned, Facebook would feed users "more and more divisive content in an effort to gain user attention & increase time on the platform." That presentation went to the heart of a question dogging Facebook almost since its founding: Does its platform aggravate polarization and tribal behavior? The answer it found, in some cases, was yes.
Facebook had kicked off an internal effort to understand how its platform shaped user behavior and how the company might address potential harms. Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg had in public and private expressed concern about "sensationalism and polarization." But in the end, Facebook's interest was fleeting. Mr. Zuckerberg and other senior executives largely shelved the basic research, according to previously unreported internal documents and people familiar with the effort, and weakened or blocked efforts to apply its conclusions to Facebook products. Facebook policy chief Joel Kaplan, who played a central role in vetting proposed changes, argued at the time that efforts to make conversations on the platform more civil were "paternalistic," said people familiar with his comments.
Facebook had kicked off an internal effort to understand how its platform shaped user behavior and how the company might address potential harms. Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg had in public and private expressed concern about "sensationalism and polarization." But in the end, Facebook's interest was fleeting. Mr. Zuckerberg and other senior executives largely shelved the basic research, according to previously unreported internal documents and people familiar with the effort, and weakened or blocked efforts to apply its conclusions to Facebook products. Facebook policy chief Joel Kaplan, who played a central role in vetting proposed changes, argued at the time that efforts to make conversations on the platform more civil were "paternalistic," said people familiar with his comments.
Of course they did (Score:5, Insightful)
Conflict is profitable, it keeps people coming back.
Re:Of course they did (Score:5, Insightful)
Conflict is profitable, it keeps people coming back.
Conflict yes, but remember you have to keep it binary. Us vs them mentality makes $$$. If you start having a ton of different factions then you lose money. So not only do you have to have conflict, you need to ensure that it's A vs B, red vs blue, commie scum vs orange man. It's literally the football teamization of public opinion to make profit. People rarely think of politics or at this rate any matter as some nuanced topic for society. Rather, they think of it as "my team" vs "their team". And boy is that kind of thinking raking in mad cash for those profiting off of it. So it's not just conflict, but polarizing conflict.
Re: (Score:3)
Football famously only having two teams? The NFL has been reduced to LA and Boston?
Re:Of course they did (Score:4, Informative)
Football famously only having two teams?
Yes.
1) My Team
2) Whatever team My Team playing at the time.
Re: (Score:2)
That's during the time the game is on. As you might be able to tell from the numerous channels devoted to covering sports, people pay a lot more attention to the intergame meta.
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty sure it's been Patriots and Not Patriots.
Re: (Score:2)
For die-hard sports team fans, there are indeed only two teams, "Our team" and "the team that is not our team." The second may wear different uniforms at different times, but the only thing that matters is that they are not Our Team.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, but that works just as well if there are 26 political parties as if there are 26 NFL franchises.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it works better in team sports because team sports contests are almost always one team against one team.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if you want to get down to it, there are more than two political parties in the USA. It wouldn't surprise me that once you get down to the smaller parties that don't have a national presence that there may actually be on the order of 26 of them. Doesn't mean it doesn't boil down to "us" vs. "them" (substitute actual political parties as necessary) for the majority of people.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, thank god that in the US, it's only us vs. them. There's no third option, ever.
Re: Of course they did (Score:1)
Re: Of course they did (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
A business man hobknobbing with a politician is not "friendship". It may be "work". It may be "manuevering for position". But, it is nothing like "I enjoy spending time with you."
Re: (Score:3)
I finally just logged off of Facebook and didn't go back. Sure I miss hearing what other people are up to. But, the constant hammering of attacks against anyone who doesn't share the same opinion by over half t
Re: (Score:3)
Because we think we have big brains, is the reason why we fall for it
About 1/2 of the population has below average intelligence, however most people think they have above average intelligence.
If you think you are right, then you have confidence in your opinion and stance in the area. Then you have sites like social media, that will then stroke your ego and say you are right, just like this other millions of people.
Then to make it worse our Culture makes it seem like a bad thing for us to change our minds a
You can't use it. (Score:1)
Unless you're a Chicom, you can't get your message out on (((Phuckerbergbook))).
The Chicoms are the only ones who aren't censored anymoar on (((Phuckerbergbook))).
Which is a very, very interesting data point, for those of us who keep an eye on the (((Mossad))).
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook is able to get away with a lot more.
Cable News channels have to pick a side to be divisive. Facebook, just manages the algorithms so the other side doesn't see them being radicalized.
Re: (Score:1)
The less we are able to get along face to face, the higher the profit
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, the opposite. Most people, unless they are truly psychopaths or contrarian assholes, tend to get along much better face to face. We see nuances in facial (micro-) expressions, tone of voice, etc. that are lost online or in a digital communication. It's harder to be a total asshole in someone's face directly, it's much easier to shit talk them behind their backs.
Facebook makes $$ from people who enjoy the anonymity. We are emboldened to lie or be an asshole to the others when there is perceived
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just being online is anonymous enough to bring out the asshole gene. Not being face to face means people pull shit they would never say or try in person. That's my point.
All your engagement are belong to Facebook! (Score:1)
Your [AmMoJo's] comment is true, but insightful only for extremely small increments of insight. Let me be clear that I do not regard it as FP abuse, because I think you are looking at a productive dimension. However there is so much more that could have been said--but if you had said any more, then some trollop would have abused FP. (Is "trollop" funnier than "troll"? I think it could describe some of the attention seekers?)
I'm approaching the topic from the new subject approach because it is more general.
Re: (Score:2)
and for 23andMe, literally: "All your bases are belong to us."
Re: (Score:1)
Good one. I hope you don't mind my "borrowing" it for a better version of this comment over on WT.Social. I'm going to credit it "to a Slashdot poster" unless you want me to be more explicit. (You don't seem shy about your name, but you might not want it included in one of my rants.)
And with regards to the following comment, which caught my eye because it seemed badly modded as Insightful (until I read it more closely), the short response to "It's Free!!!" is TANSTAAFL (with reference to my sig, too).
Re: (Score:2)
No prob, steal away.
Credit if you like, or not, as you like; I doubt that one quip is going to change anybody's opinion of me one way or another
Re: (Score:1)
I'd prefer a more clear answer... If I project my own preferences, then I'd say the "organizational" citation is adequate. That was my precise policy for all my years of technical editing, even when some of my researchers asked to credit me by name in the acknowledgments. So the projective answer is "No."
However, you sound rather more willing to appear in public and include your name (or at least pen name) in your sig, too. Plus your own domain, too? That seems to indicate you welcome the publicity. And in
Re: (Score:1)
Went ahead and linked you in. Too easy to edit over there?
It's Free!!! (Score:2, Insightful)
Facebook is free. If you find the cost is too high (see below) don't use it.
E
Costs of FB
1. It's divisive
2. It polarizes people by showing them things they already agree with
3. It sells your location and other data
4. It sells your advertising viewing behavior
5-10 there's more but how much do you need before you give up liking what Aunt Selma said in return for privacy?
Re:It's Free!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
That is the problem. You don't realize the actual cost, until it is too late.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that this has a large societal cost. Even if you stop using it that so many others are using it still has a large cost. Normally when something has a large societal cost we end up regulating it. It is not much different than speed limits, traffic laws etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
That is why I have proposed many times to nationalize Corporations. It takes the "make money" factor out of the equation and is a net benefit to society.
Re: (Score:2)
Really, man! It has had a 100 percent success rate at creating utopia in all the countries that have done it so far. Why isn't everybody doing it?
Before you go around nationalizing shit, you should take a better look at the kind of people that are winning the election these days.
The Trump administration (Score:2)
Just FYI, some guy named Trump won the election.
The federal government is the Trump administration.
If you advocate putting the federal government in charge of something, you're saying you want to put the Trump administration in charge of it. You're saying that the Trump team can and will do a better job of running things than Elon Musk or whoever is running the business at the moment. Also, you're saying it's right to take it away from Musk and give it to the Trump administration.
Just curious, what are yo
Re: (Score:2)
Trump has not resigned. Even if you really, really wish he did, he didn't. Ajit Pai has not resigned.
The feds running the TV networks = Ajit Pai running the TV networks. Even if you REALLY want to the FCC chairman to be Bill Maher, it's still Ajit Pai running the FCC, not Maher.
And if you think Donald Trump Sr is a piece of work, wait until you see Donald Trump Junior in 2028. Think it can't happen? One word - Bush.
Re: (Score:2)
Ps - in your best case scenario in which Trump loses the election in November, federally-run programs will have as their boss the guy who is upset that black kids don't do as well in school as smart kids.
If things go the way you hope, the new president will be the guy who brags about his work with segregationalists.
We're going to have a dumbass running the executive branch for the next five years. The only question is which dumbass.
Re: (Score:1)
Dear lord man! Nothing like the outright THEFT of trillions of dollars worth of assets, property, and IP from private citizens. Might as well print toilet paper w/ the Constitution on it to use on out posterior. Sheesh!
It's thinking that this, that can justify such wholesale theft and anti-constitutional behavior, that we find ourselves in the mess w do, with BOTH parties!
Re: (Score:2)
You forgot the sarcasm tags, people might think you are serious.
Re: (Score:2)
Now where's the money in that?
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook should be promoting inclusiveness and diversity of opinion. Not allowing people to publish hateful and divisive things on their platform should be their highest priority.
Diversity of opinion is at direct odds with 'hateful and divisive things' when hateful and divisive is as broadly defined someone got offended. Merely saying "I don't think [aggrieved group] should get [special privilege]" is enough to be considered hateful by [aggrieved group]. The only real solution is to go back to the good old days of everyone was free to have an opinion without being hounded, attempted to be fired, cancelled, or whatever other nonsense mob justice demands.
"But in the end, Facebook's interest was fleeting" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt he feels anything except a vague sense that the world is stupid. He's insulated from any negative personal consequences, has no dependency on a functioning civil society, and knows he can go anywhere in the world if things turn really bad.
The very rich are different from you and me. Gatsby.
Re:"But in the end, Facebook's interest was fleeti (Score:5, Funny)
Do you really think that Mr Zuckerburg cares about anything besides profits?
Let's see...
Cares primarily about profits, check.
Has done numerous acquisitions, check.
Kind of annoying in person, and changes his tune when accountability comes knocking, check.
I'm calling it. Zuckerburg is a Ferengi.
Re: (Score:2)
Not unique (Score:1)
This isn't anything unique to Facebook... even here on Slashdot there's very little actual discussion anymore. Contradict the popular, socially acceptable narrative and it immediately becomes a flame war and a rush to downvote comments because they threaten your world view. Facebook is just a more obvious and prolific example of the prevailing attitude of all social media interaction, they're not the cause of it.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know how "extremely" well it works, but I agree it works better than neural networks trained for maximizing click rate and attention. Still, there are some comments that get up-modded for bad reasons, i.e. comments that represent what the majority thinks and not necessarily for the quality of the comment.
Now I'm wondering whether it would be possible to train a neural network that would do better than votes, if the objective was just different. Maximizing for actual quality, something like a combin
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I disagree. I think Slashdot's moderation system works extremely well.
It only works well if there isn't some political angle that can be wedged into the discussion. Then it's all down to whether leftists or rightists got more random mod points that day.
It would be nice if most folks put their biases when moderating aside, but here on /., "-1 Overrated" still means "I disagree, but don't feel like writing a reply".
Re: (Score:2)
This has always been like this on Slashdot.
However the question is, did you get down moderated because it conflicted with someone world view, or because your comment was stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
However the question is, did you get down moderated because it conflicted with someone world view, or because your comment was stupid.
From what I see: in most cases, both.
Um (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
No, it isn't up to Facebook to shape behaviour. The point is that it does do so anyway, and to the detriment of our society.
They are part of the problem (Score:4, Insightful)
Facebook used to give you stories of everyone in chronological order. You even got updates from people that you disagreed with politically. They then switched to a pro-censorship model where they encouraged people to censor and block out updates from people they disagreed with. They also tweaked their algorithms to give updates only from like minded people.
The effect was the creation of an echo-chamber. People started to only get exposed to ideas that they agreed with. Especially when you consider that other platforms (Twitter etc.) started doing similar things at the same time. The result was a disaster for society as tolerance for each other plummeted worldwide and quite divisive for society.
Likewise civility has notably dropped as people stopped getting exposed to ideas that they disagreed with. Our country will not heal the divisions we have until we stop living in echo chambers and start stepping outside our comfort zones again. The net effect is the large scale radicalization of millions of people across the political spectrum.
You can readily tell in the tone of chat messages and forums today to 10 or 20 years ago. People are much ruder and more antagonistic then they used to be. Censorship is much more widespread where it used to be condemned as a fundamentally evil activity.
The concept of deplatforming became socially acceptable where the was once considered abhorrent. Instead of the Internet being a public square where we have a free exchange of ideas it has increasingly become the town hall where people seek to shout down opposing viewpoints and silence those they disagree with.
The only way to fix these issues is to kill the echo chambers, ensure that people are getting a mixture of viewpoints - including those that they disagree with. We also need to enforce the law on censorship by publishers and force them to be content neutral. The act of deplatforming is heinous and needs to be outlawed.
Re: (Score:1)
You even got updates from people that you disagreed with politically.
Have you even been paying attention to American politics over the last few years? It's a two-party, pander-to-your-base, shitshow. I can barely tolerate the lesser of the two evils, let alone have any desire to be inundated with crap from the other side. This isn't Facebook's problem - as a country, we did this to ourselves.
Facebook's "unfollow" feature has been the greatest blessing towards saving friendships.
Re: (Score:2)
They also tweaked their algorithms to give updates only from like minded people.
The effect was the creation of an echo-chamber. People started to only get exposed to ideas that they agreed with.
Funny, that. I get shown plenty of left wing posts, which are definitely not like minded to me. I'm pretty much guaranteed to get about five to one ratio of left wing posts, even if they have to be from the most marginally related of "friends". If it's supposed to be an echo chamber, apparently Facebook doesn't like my echos and feels that it needs to import some.
The act of deplatforming is heinous and needs to be outlawed.
This I agree with wholeheartedly.
Re: (Score:1)
This is inevitable (Score:1)
This isn't a personal failing of Mark Zuckerberg. This is the reality of our system. Zuckerberg is under tremendous pressure to drive quarterly profits. If he fails to do so, the board of directors will fire him and find somebody else to do it. Facebook is (and has been) very aware that their product promotes tribalism and divisiveness and that it is a ready-made vehicle for terrifyingly effective propaganda campaigns--domestic or foreign in origin. Unfortunately, the same algorithms that lead to those thin
Re: (Score:2)
The board can't fire Zuckerbeg due to Facebook's share structure. Zuvkerberg controls Facebook completely even without a majority of the shares. He owns 60% of the voting shares!
We know Facebook is bad for society (Score:1)
We could ban it & regulate it, but I'm pretty sure we're all terrified of doing that (slippery slope).
But baring that do we let it just keep running roughshod over us?
One things for sure, the Market Place of Ideas doesn't work. The best ideas aren't the ones rising to the top. Instead we're getting snake oil.
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook is not the Marketplace of Ideas. Their algorithms keep you in an echo chamber, such that "your ideas" appear far more popular than they actually are.
Re: (Score:2)
Negative, tribal chimps (Score:1)
LEAVE FACEBOOK *NOW* (Score:2)
division is good (Score:2)
division is good
and
division is good
Just People being People (Score:4, Interesting)
There's no question that social media has been and continues to be manipulated by certain groups to intentionally spread certain ideas for their desired effects. But the reason that flew under the radar so much is because PEOPLE are divisive. Moreover, AMERICANS are taught and encouraged to be constantly rebellious against most forms of authority. If you see someone calling politicians names, questioning law enforcement, shaking their fists at he wealthy; being racist, sexist, or bigoted, or otherwise intolerant; pushing a thoroughly disproved conspiracy theory, or providing their own flavor of online harassment, NO ONE IS SURPRISED.
If you were to put 100 diverse people in a room, they would divide themselves into groups and begin comparing their own groups against the others. If you were to put 100 people of the same race, sex, age, and political orientation in a room, they would STILL divide themselves up and find a way to differentiate themselves against the others.
All Facebook does is facilitate grouping and suggest that you might like these/those groups over there. If people weren't such assholes, this function wouldn't be much of an issue. But people ARE under-educated assholes who prefer the warm embrace of confirmation bias over the pursuit of fact.
So why rant about it? Because of my proposed thesis on the topic: Humans weren't sufficiently socially evolved (on the whole) to handle the massive benefits that could come with social media systems. We weren't and still aren't good enough people (on the whole) so as to prevent fully public social media platforms from becoming cesspools. Pretty much all of the centralized public systems (Twitter, Facebook, Instagram) should be shut down for the greater good.
Hold my beer (Score:1)
All about the money (Score:1)
people have a choice (Score:1)
if they're all that concerned with this kind of polarization, they can leave. but for some reason, they're patronizingly concerned with what EVERYONE ELSE is doing. pfffft. fucking hall monitors.