Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Facebook Social Networks

Facebook Rebuts Netflix Documentary 'The Social Dilemma' (cnbc.com) 39

Facebook on Friday offered a rebuttal to the hit Netflix documentary-drama, "The Social Dilemma." The movie revealed, perhaps for the first time to some viewers, how social networks use algorithms to keep people coming back. It also addressed how tech companies have influenced elections, ethnic violence and rates of depression and suicide. Some viewers said they were deleting Facebook and Instagram after watching it. From a report: The rebuttal suggests that Facebook may be worried that the documentary's effects on usage. "The Social Dilemma" appeared in Netflix's top ten most popular movies and TV shows list in September and is still listed in its Trending section. In a post published on its site, Facebook addressed several concerns it has with the movie, covering topics like addiction, users being "the product," its algorithms, data privacy, polarization, elections and misinformation. "Rather than offer a nuanced look at technology, it gives a distorted view of how social media platforms work to create a convenient scapegoat for what are difficult and complex societal problems," Facebook said. It said the documentary sensationalizes social networks and provides a distorted view to how they work.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Facebook Rebuts Netflix Documentary 'The Social Dilemma'

Comments Filter:
  • by onyxruby ( 118189 ) <onyxruby&comcast,net> on Friday October 02, 2020 @04:21PM (#60566104)

    The movie whitewashes their insidious behavior. Their involvement is mass censorship certainly isn't properly covered. Their involvement in election meddling is whitewashed. They have been far more involved in manipulating the 2020 US election than shown. It's long past time to start charging corporations for not listing these in-kind contributions to one political party on their taxes.

    Do we want unelected big tech bureaucrats deciding our elections? That's what we have right now. Their level of involvement in developing China style social credit scores (without calling it that) and canceling people for their political views certainly was given short shift. Don't let Facebook get away with the entirely too kind retelling of their story from the Netflix movie.

    • by I'mjusthere ( 6916492 ) on Friday October 02, 2020 @05:01PM (#60566222)

      ...and canceling people for their political views...

      If their political views are based on bullshit, they may think they are being canceled.

      Please, let us not confuse political views with misinformation.

      If someone posts some shit about how anitfa is setting fires when the cops are saying it is a lie and please stop posting that shit and ignore that shit [nbcnews.com] and it is deleted, that is NOT suppressing someones political views. That is stopping misinformation that is harming public safety.

      I actually know someone who trusts her facebook feed MORE than any other media. Why? 'Because so many sharing the information means it must be true!'

      She believes in some Red Shoe membership of liberals who wear red shoes made out of aborted babies or some such nonsense. She wears no mask and uses no social distancing and makes fun of people who do - even though one of her customers DIED from Covid. She brushes that off because he was old.

      Or how antifa is considered an organization when Trumps own FBI director said it was an ideology and not an organization.

      Of course, when people say that antifa is this anarchist organization, I want to tell them that sure it is! It is financed by socialists who own privately held businesses that make porn with virgin porn stars who are orthodox Jews that only eat bacon and shrimp.

      If anyone is lost on what I was saying, you are part of the problem.

      • Re: (Score:1, Troll)

        "anyone that is lost on what I was saying, you are part of the problem" "You're part of the problem." "You're part of the problem." "You're part of the problem." Ok millenial lefty douchebag. Get some fucking new material. Thing is you're wrong and that article you link to is unresearched. saying "this doesn't exist" just because you look both ways across the street doesn't mean shit. We know for a fact that people, who have been at antifa gatherings HAVE been arrested for starting fires. We know that
        • Such eloquence! Such poise! Such powerful and refined writing!*

          I'm quite certain there was a point you were trying to make there, but it got lost amid your incoherent, ascerbic rambling.

          Get back under your bridge.

          (*: /s, in case that wasn't clear)

      • Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • Facebook is like the guy who sells the billboard over the stage on the street. Then when it turns out the person drawing the crowds was a fraud killing people selling fake medicine they just say "oops" and bring on another one and keep making money. I don't even want to think about the number of people who were sucked into some conspiracy theory that actually hurt them because Facebook "recommended" it to them because it would increase their engagement (amount of ads FB can sell). FB pretends not to edit
      • If their political views are based on bullshit, they may think they are being canceled.

        I'm inclined to think people that think they are being cancelled likely think that because their accounts stop getting traffic or locked out.

        Please, let us not confuse political views with misinformation.

        That's the kind of propaganda used to justify censorship for the last couple of centuries. It's amazing how much information is classified as political views in order to support this. By way of recent example the AP liter

        • the AP literally just redefined a riot to mean a political protest last week

          What? Let me see if I can find that... you're talking about this? [twitter.com]

          New guidance on AP Stylebook Online: Use care in deciding which term best applies: A riot is a wild or violent disturbance of the peace involving a group of people. The term riot suggests uncontrolled chaos and pandemonium.
          Focusing on rioting and property destruction rather than underlying grievance has been used in the past to stigmatize broad swaths of people protesting against lynching, police brutality or for racial justice, going back to the urban uprisings of the 1960s.
          Unrest is a vaguer, milder and less emotional term for a condition of angry discontent and protest verging on revolt.
          Protest and demonstration refer to specific actions such as marches, sit-ins, rallies or other actions meant to register dissent. They can be legal or illegal, organized or spontaneous, peaceful or violent, and involve any number of people.
          Revolt and uprising both suggest a broader political dimension or civil upheavals, a sustained period of protests or unrest against powerful groups or governing systems.

          In other words: the Associated Press is specifically warning against contributing to the propaganda that you are complaining about, and you are using that warning as an example of the propaganda that you are complaining about.

          • You didn't actually read that before replying, did you? They start by giving the political reason for changing the definition - exactly as I previously claimed. They then offer a new word to describe rioting, in this case "unrest".

            They then literally redefine protest to include violence, perhaps because they have lost a lot of credibility with the public over the last summer of calling hundreds of riots "mostly peaceful"? Let me highlight the specific section for you that you appear to have missed:

            Protest a

            • I did read it, and so I know that they didn't change the definition of anything. They started by urging caution about choosing which words you use. Then they gave the reason for this caution: the word "riot" has been used in the past for propoganda, they said.

              I don't know where on earth you got the idea that protests couldn't be violent, the reason we have the phrase "non-violent protest" is because those are only one variety. Peasant revolts / riots / uprisings (so-called depending on who you're talking
              • I'm in support of those people in Iran, however my definitions don't change meaning based upon the target. That means they were rioting. It just so happens that they were rioting against one of the most evil and corrupt governments on earth. I was certainly hopeful that they might overthrow the despots in charge. Without question they were on the border of revolution, personally I'm of the opinion we should have supported a revolution in Iran.

                Protests are peaceful, riots are violent. The AP made worldwide h

                • I don't know who Baghdad Bob is, but I guess he knows what the word "protest" means? All right, your claim is that the AP changed the definition of protest a few days ago. So if I find a story by the AP which is older than that, and which uses the word protest in a violent context, then this would disprove your claim. Fine, that's easy enough.

                  From 2019 [apnews.com]
                  From 2010 [timesargus.com]
                  From 1992 [nytimes.com]

                  Etc. There are lots more, just search for associated press and "violent protest" and any year. I don't know how you've managed to
    • Their involvement is mass censorship certainly isn't properly covered.

      Oh please, the ability of one to spread their ideas has always had gatekeepers. Not having a license for spectrum, not owning a printing press, not able to get monks to copy your books. Go back far enough and you might not even have been afforded with the luxury of being taught to read and write.

      The concept of free expression means the government can’t shut you up if you provide your own platform for disseminating your speech. It does not mean you can interrupt a newscaster because you have some im

  • No rebuttal at all (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dskoll ( 99328 ) on Friday October 02, 2020 @04:39PM (#60566138) Homepage

    I read the so-called rebuttal. It's bullshit. Something a committee of "brand spin" experts would come up with.

    Our News Feed product teams are not incentivized to build features that increase time-spent on our products. Instead we want to make sure we offer value to people, not just drive usage.

    My only comment on that paragraph is LoL.

    For example, in 2018 we changed our ranking for News Feed to prioritize meaningful social interactions and deprioritize things like viral videos. The change led to a decrease of 50M hours a day worth of time spent on Facebook. That isn’t the kind of thing you do if you are simply trying to drive people to use your services more.

    50M hours/day sounds like a lot until you realize the average user spends 58 minutes a day [broadbandsearch.net] on Facebook, and Facebook has 1.4 billion daily active users. Do the math and a decrease of 50M hours/day works out to a decrease of 3.7%, or about 2 minutes less a day per user. Whoop-de-doo.

    But even when businesses purchase ads on Facebook, they don’t know who you are.

    Bullshit. Facebook's ad segmentation features allow ad purchasers to know exactly who they are targeting.

    • by Rhipf ( 525263 )

      For example, in 2018 we changed our ranking for News Feed to prioritize
      meaningful social interactions and deprioritize things like viral videos.
      The change led to a decrease of 50M hours a day worth of time spent on
      Facebook. That isn’t the kind of thing you do if you are simply trying to
      drive people to use your services more.

      50M hours/day sounds like a lot until you realize the average user spends 58 minutes a day [broadbandsearch.net] on Facebook, and Facebook has 1.4 billion daily active users. Do the math and a decrease of 50M hours/day works out to a decrease of 3.7%, or about 2 minutes less a day per user. Whoop-de-doo.

      So basically everyone is watching one less viral video a day after they stopped prioritizing viral videos and there was no increase in "social interactions". 8^)

    • by jittles ( 1613415 ) on Friday October 02, 2020 @05:01PM (#60566224)

      I read the so-called rebuttal. It's bullshit. Something a committee of "brand spin" experts would come up with.

      Our News Feed product teams are not incentivized to build features that increase time-spent on our products. Instead we want to make sure we offer value to people, not just drive usage.

      My only comment on that paragraph is LoL.

      For example, in 2018 we changed our ranking for News Feed to prioritize meaningful social interactions and deprioritize things like viral videos. The change led to a decrease of 50M hours a day worth of time spent on Facebook. That isn’t the kind of thing you do if you are simply trying to drive people to use your services more.

      50M hours/day sounds like a lot until you realize the average user spends 58 minutes a day [broadbandsearch.net] on Facebook, and Facebook has 1.4 billion daily active users. Do the math and a decrease of 50M hours/day works out to a decrease of 3.7%, or about 2 minutes less a day per user. Whoop-de-doo.

      But even when businesses purchase ads on Facebook, they don’t know who you are.

      Bullshit. Facebook's ad segmentation features allow ad purchasers to know exactly who they are targeting.

      What they also failed to mention is that it WAS an incentive to keep people in Facebook as those viral videos were coming from TikTok, a competing social media platform.

      Facebook:

      We stopped advertising for TikTok for free and it has resulted in a fractional decrease in people's facebook time. You should be applauding our moral stance on the issue.

    • Facebook goes out of it's way to ensure that it's the ONLY ecosystem people use.

      Their new "look" takes it to even more extremes, putting restrictions on the ways in which their own users can reference Facebook content outside of the tightly-regulated "share" controls they impose. Even within their own social media bubble.

      If Facebook was a hardware device, it wouldn't be able to plug into anything other than Facebook peripherals. And even then, Facebook would decide what degree of intra-system functionality

  • Whenever I want to avoid facing up to my responsibility for something, I talk about how complex the situation is and how we should take a more nuanced approach.
  • by dysmal ( 3361085 ) on Friday October 02, 2020 @04:52PM (#60566180)

    Sure. Riiiight. We believe you.

    People say they will. Some of them might even deactivate their account and uninstall the app... for a while! Until of course they get pressured into going back because they missed out on the party invites or can't figure out how to share pictures with others without their electronic crack dealer.

    If EVERY person who commented that they'd remove FaceBook from their life actually followed through, do you know what would happen to FaceBook? NOTHING. They have your data already!

    To those of you who (like me) have cut the cord of FaceBook (02/08/2012), you know I'm right.

  • Zuckface will of course try to spin and avoid responsibility - they only respect money. Humans are just free bulk fuel for their platforms.
    Screw these guys.
  • After all, who knows more about distorted views and sensationalizing social networks?

  • by michaelcole ( 704646 ) on Friday October 02, 2020 @05:09PM (#60566244)
    The greatest mistake of my generation was trusting Facebook, Google, and the rest of the advertising industrial complex with our relationships.
  • by nospam007 ( 722110 ) * on Friday October 02, 2020 @05:13PM (#60566252)

    If you recognize it.

  • by RobinH ( 124750 ) on Friday October 02, 2020 @05:20PM (#60566266) Homepage
    I've watched the documentary and while it is dumbed down to make it easier to understand for the average person, it certainly isn't wrong. It also presents a bunch of silicon valley insiders who are the ones ringing the alarm bells. The information wasn't new to me, but it did make me start thinking about incentives. The social media companies make money by identifying people who are the most likely to believe conspiracy theories and then selling access to those people to the highest bidder. After all, if you're a foreign power and you want to push a narrative and you don't have any real evidence, you're best to target people who believe in QAnon or PizzaGate. The social media companies let you do this, and make tons of money on it. They have no real incentive to get rid of misinformation.
  • ...have to have a documentary tell them what's wrong with Facebook when it's been very obvious for a very long time. Maybe not the specifics, but generally. It's a frightfully invasive and disrespectful platform, IMHO for what it's worth. But, if this doc can help some remove themselves from Facebook, it's done a good job of explaining why they should.

  • Netflix uses algorithms to determine which shows will add subscribers and convince them to sit on the couch for hours on end wasting away as they stuff their faces with potato chips as the real world goes by.

  • A distorted view? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dark.nebulae ( 3950923 ) on Friday October 02, 2020 @08:52PM (#60566810)

    Rather than offer a nuanced look at technology, it gives a distorted view of how social media platforms work to create a convenient scapegoat for what are difficult and complex societal problems.

    A distorted view? Guys, you really need to leave your little bubbles and go out and experience what is going on in the world.

    • Blue vs Red contention is at an all-time high, and both candidates are allowed to tell their followers the world is going to end if the other gets elected.
    • A deadly coronovirus is affecting the world but it has been turned into a political issue where simple methods to control the spread have been turned into attacks on freedom.
    • Black vs Blue has been exploding all year long and is has added to the vitriol in the coming election.
    • Coast vs Flyover is also becoming an issue of contention.
    • Climate change is reaching a point of no return yet it is still treated as fake by many and allowed to propagate disinformation discrediting the science.
    • Antivaxers are already shooting down the covid vaccine which will result in covid being with us forever.
    • A new group of people has formed around the flat earth.
    • A whole qanon movement has grown around baseless conspiracy theories like pizzagate and stuff that, rather than being discredited, now has a house candidate that fully backs Q that will soon end up being elected to government.

    All of these problems you can lay at the feet of Facebook and the other social platforms. Sure people have had crazy ideas forever, but before social networks they couldn't get together with other like-minded folks and propagate and promote their craziness to other susceptible people.

  • by jenningsthecat ( 1525947 ) on Friday October 02, 2020 @09:41PM (#60566940)

    The rebuttal suggests that Facebook may be worried that the documentary's effects on usage.

    The tobacco industry has hung on for almost 70 years after their product was definitively linked to cancer, and for probably 50 years after it became public knowledge that they had invested a lot in making cigarettes even more addictive. What's Facebook so worried about?

    Maybe they're afraid of their own platform being used to disseminate the information that will eventually bring the company down. Wouldn't that be poetic justice?

"Joy is wealth and love is the legal tender of the soul." -- Robert G. Ingersoll

Working...