
Facebook’s algorithm change has spurred an angry, Fox News-dominated News Feed - sethbannon
http://www.niemanlab.org/2019/03/one-year-in-facebooks-big-algorithm-change-has-spurred-an-angry-fox-news-dominated-and-very-engaged-news-feed
======
volak
Fox News dominates ratings on TV so its not surprising they'd be #1 - there's
also the fact this is "engagements" and not click-throughs. I'd wager good 15%
of these are probably people clicking "Angry" not actually engaging.

If you look at "content with the most shares" not surprisingly Reuters and
Patch tops the list.

OP's headline presumes any algorithm should achieve left/right balance - this
is just impossible.

There was a good tweet the other day something along the lines of

If I Google a headline the results are:

* New York Times: Your number of free articles is 0

* Wall Street Journal: Subscription needed

* Bloomberg: See this article for $1

* Fox News: Completely free

* Breitbart: Completely free

Seeing this its no stretch to understand why media struggles

~~~
xkcd-sucks
So people tell me Breitbart is a propaganda machine financed by political
manipulators, but Fox is certainly run like a business. What is Fox doing to
make their content free that NYT and WSJ can't t?

~~~
hanging
Disney is acquiring Fox News effective within a month.

~~~
Redoubts
That was spun off, and not sold to Disney

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_Corporation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_Corporation)

------
revskill
Long time ago, my facebook newsfeed was full of my friends' sharing, it's been
very useful place for us to keep friends update. But now, it's a different
place. It's a place for ads, for livestream, for real "social" stuffs, but
most of them is useless to me for what i use facebook for.

~~~
jaabe
The Facebook news feed is dead to anyone but trolls, at least in my anecdotal
experience.

Facebook is only useful for its yellow pages function. Unfortunately that
alone is enough to keep my social circle on Facebook. It’s just really hard to
break away, because social circles consists of people with different social
circles, and not everyone is going to replace Facebook with the samething, and
then everyone is still on Facebook.

Maybe e-mail could be the core of the next generation yellow pages? It’s the
only thing everyone has.

~~~
nradov
My Facebook news feed is fine. I actively unfollow (hide all from) almost all
shared third-party content (including news) so that I mostly only see original
content from my friends and family.

~~~
jaabe
I don’t follow anything that isn’t people I know and meet at least semi-
regularly in the real world. I’ve actively unfollowed a few of them (shhh),
but my feed can go a few days with no updates from the 90 people I’m down to.

But of course that’s my anecdotal view. I just never saw the point in
following a company or a news paper on a social media.

~~~
nradov
The issue is that sometimes friends will share posts from third-party pages,
and then those sometimes show up in your feed. You have to manually hide all
from each source in order to prevent that.

------
toofy
Seeing the top shared and engaged content in this article is pretty much the
exact reason I and pretty much everyone I know abandoned Facebook long ago. It
has been reduced to mostly just a place for people who are highly addicted to
outragePorn clickbait. As the article says:

> _...Instead, it’s often an angry, reactive place where people go to get
> worked up and to get scared._

I haven't checked to see if this has been studied, but I'd wager a years
salary that information which causes fear and/or outrage are highly addictive
and that Facebook's core crowd are hooked. I'd also wager that this addiction
is why so many aren't concerned with whether or not the information is
accurate, as long as they get their dose.

~~~
smokeyj
It's funny how clearly people are addicted to outrage, yet also in complete
denial about it. They don't see it as outrage, instead it's measured,
proportional, and reactionary response to the opposition. It's the
_opposition_ that's addicted to outrage, not _my team_.

Unfortunately I think we've forged a new road to politics, we can call it
"outrage marketing". The more the opposition is outraged, the more publicity
you get - the more extreme candidates from both sides bubble up in popularity.

~~~
pixl97
Related video to watch: CGPGrey, This video will make you angry.

------
Alterlife
I wish it could be made illegal to optimise for engagement.

“Engagement” their acceptable replacement word for what they really want to
optimise for: Addiction.

~~~
nlh
It’s such a slippery slope, but you’re so right.

Chemists designed a chemical that’s optimized for engagement too — it’s called
heroin!

On the other side, one could argue that just about any successful product or
service, by definition, optimized for engagement (addiction). Hit TV shows,
beautiful vacation spots, sex. So where do you draw the line?

~~~
delecti
Actually heroin was initially sold as a _less_ addictive alternative to
morphine.

------
adolph
_Their feeds give them permission to like what they already like. Their feeds
let them know that their culture is winning._

[https://harpers.org/archive/2019/04/like-this-or-
die/](https://harpers.org/archive/2019/04/like-this-or-die/)

------
untog
Worth reading the entire article, it's a great, if depressing read. I
seriously wonder Facebook is up to the challenge here - they made algorithmic
changes to make the news feed a better place and it very obviously failed. And
yet they haven't changed a thing in reaction. Was anyone even looking?

It all feels incredibly reactionary: make a change to answer your critics and
then forget all about it until it becomes an issue again.

~~~
cal5k
Perhaps Facebook’s algorithms aren’t the issue. Maybe WE are the problem :)

------
saltvedt
I've created a news aggregator based on Wikipedia references. While this might
be comparing apples to oranges, here's the list of the most cited websites by
Wikipedia: [https://cited.news/domains](https://cited.news/domains)

It's still a bit buggy, so the "blank" domain is ranked #1, followed by NY
Times, BBC and The Guardian.

Fox News is ranked at #93 at that list:
[https://cited.news/domains/show/www.foxnews.com/citations](https://cited.news/domains/show/www.foxnews.com/citations)

~~~
burfog
Wikipedia itself is quite biased. Some domains are even banned despite
providing real news with original reporting.

~~~
thundergolfer
Know where to find that list? I googled around and couldn't get it.

~~~
cooper12
No sources are actually blanket "banned". Some exceptionally bad ones like the
Daily Mail are "deprecated", but that does not mean it can't be used anywhere
ever. For your edification:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Per...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources)
(there's a legend at the bottom)

~~~
burfog
They are banned. Search your list for "blacklist". Note that the blacklisted
sources are only on one side of the political spectrum -- not one thing on the
other side got blacklisted.

~~~
cooper12
Oh, you meant Breitbart and Infowars? Those can still be used, but require
whitelisting; so still not a ban. You can read the linked discussions for more
information. Not gonna rehash and spell it all out for you here. I wouldn't
say two instances are a pattern of anything, but going by your logic, guess
that side of the spectrum just has more history of spam and persistent abuse
on the English Wikipedia.

------
teddyh
Other people in this thread have already posted links to _The Toxoplasma Of
Rage_ by Slate Star Codex and _This Video Will Make You Angry_ by CGP Grey, so
I’ll just complete the set with _You 're not going to believe what I'm about
to tell you_ by The Oatmeal:

[https://theoatmeal.com/comics/believe](https://theoatmeal.com/comics/believe)

------
IgorPartola
That’s why I no longer participate in Facebook other than their marketplace. I
also turn off retweets on Twitter. I want to see what my friends have to say,
not what they share. Shared content is either garbage, propaganda, or news
which I get elsewhere.

------
JakeWesorick
I'd love to see companies that use an algorithm to create "feeds" also release
a full explanation on how the algorithm works. I prefer a chronological feeds
mostly because then I know I'm not being manipulated by an algorithm. Making
in transparent would give me confidence in it.

~~~
akoncius
explaining algorithm would help bad actors to abuse it even more..

------
tmaly
I have started to use FB for only humor and private groups about side
projects.

I got tired of all the politics and news. If it bleeds it leads keeps the mind
steeped in negativity.

~~~
1337biz
I am using FB the same way. The only thing left making it useful are the
groups and the event calendar function. Meetup still seems mostly driven by
tech or some super niche topics while FB carters to a broad audience.

~~~
tmaly
I would prefer a more niche product that would take the best of FB groups and
meetup together.

Its nice to have focused discussion, but it is also good to actually get
together face to face.

------
platz
If you're wondering how articles like "Woman smears menstrual blood on face to
show periods are beautiful and powerful" are motivated and end up getting
amplified, look no further than The Toxoplasma Of Rage (Slate Star Codex)

[http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/17/the-toxoplasma-of-
rage/](http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/17/the-toxoplasma-of-rage/)

...

"So there’s a tradeoff here, with X on one side and Y on the other.

X can get everyone to agree in principle that Q is bad, but no one will pay
any attention to it.

And Y can get everyone to pay attention to Q, but a lot of people who would
otherwise oppose it will switch to supporting it just because they’re so mad
at the way it’s being publicized.

At least Y got them to pay attention! They’re traveling up an incentive
gradient that rewards them for doing so, even if it destroys their
credibility."

...

"People talk about the shift from old print-based journalism to the new world
of social media and the sites adapted to serve it. These are fast, responsive,
and only just beginning to discover the power of controversy. They are memetic
evolution shot into hyperdrive, and the omega point is a well-tuned machine
optimized to search the world for the most controversial and counterproductive
issues, then make sure no one can talk about anything else. An engine that
creates money by burning the few remaining shreds of cooperation,
bipartisanship and social trust."

------
anonytrary
Things might be simpler if content aggregators had the option of making public
their feed algorithms in exchange for not being responsible for user-posted
content. Congress will eventually learn that automated censorship is not even
close to being a solved problem, and it may never be truly solved. Whether or
not automated zero-error censorship is even _possible_ is a question for
philosophers and mathematicians. I find it crazy that we're burdening
companies with this job when we know so little about it.

Common sense tells us that users should be responsible for what they post. If
you post something illegal, _you_ should pay the price, not the ISP, not
Google, not Facebook. If users aren't held accountable for their own actions,
then they'll continue to post abominable things. It should not the
responsibility of Google, Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, etc. to provide a safety
net for the user.

The internet is like a virtual highway. Some people build roads, but it is the
responsibility of the rest of us to learn how to use those roads safely and in
accordance with the laws. We usually don't punish the road-builders for
accidents (unless the road was built with malicious intent).

------
mannyk7
This "study" simply tells me really nothing. It does sort out the types of
users who want to connect and click on those posts in questions.

Personally speaking, I would look elsewhere for a more in-depth and bias-free
analysis for any business driven venture. Too much presumptions made in this
article. Just that the way it defines “meaningful interactions”, "divisive"
topics, “angry” reaction, etc. is rather unprofessional.

A better way is to define and characterize the users of these news postings
and get statistical averages on the response time and intensity of responses
as well as commonly used words/phrase in reply.

------
cowpig
CGP Grey has an interesting video about anger-inducing content and engagement:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc)

------
NicoJuicy
Hey Mr. Zuckerberg,

Send me back my friends list, it's how facebook originated. And if you
continue down this road.

It's how someone else might take over.

It's just common sense.

With friendly regards,

A facebook reader ( not a user anymore, since i don't post anything on it)

------
Ozzie_osman
This is kind of sad, that angry is the top emotion. If FB was really
optimizing for time well spent, you'd think the ranking system would be able
to pick up on content or sources that predictably generate angry reactions.

~~~
dymk
That’s not FB optimizing, it’s Fox News

------
nojvek
I realized my friends didn’t use Facebook. I didn’t use Facebook much. It was
just ads and pages posting crap that played with my emotions. I kept Facebook
so I could message a friend if I was in their city and we could meet. I held
my account for years in that hope. I then realized I haven’t messaged anyone
for a year. I mostly use other channels. I deleted Facebook and been happy
ever since. My entire circle of friends is mostly Facebook zombies.

My prediction is it will be a generational thing. Kinda like how young people
really don’t buy that much jewelry compared to their parents

------
gnicholas
> _the “angry” reaction dominates many pages, with “Fox News driving the most
> angry reactions of anyone, with nearly double that of anyone else.”_

So does this mean that Fox News is dominating the news feed because of liberal
people hating on it, or is it because of articles that Fox News writes that
riles up their base?

~~~
cowpig
I think it's healthier to avoid dividing everybody into two categories, and
interpreting everything with respect to those.

But to answer your question within your own worldview, it's both.

~~~
isoskeles
Why aren’t you commenting this at the OP? Do you think “Fox News dominated”
wasn’t intentionally playing into the idea of dividing everybody into two
categories?

~~~
cowpig
I think "Fox New dominated" is the headline because the research it is
reporting on shows that Fox News dominates the rankings in feeds.

edit: also I did respond to the top level, but with a link to something which
I felt contributed to my understanding of this topic:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc)

------
mcguire
I'm not sure how I feel about ladbible leading breitbart.

------
danschumann
Angry? It makes you angry but that doesn't mean it's angry. Just like hate
speech that causes you to hate but isn't necessarily motivated by hatred.

~~~
darkstar999
Read the article. "Angry" in this context is the Facebook reaction (such as
the "like").

~~~
SlowRobotAhead
You are right, but that metric is even more meaningless.

Fox New Headline _”Immigration crisis confirmed as 70,000 illegals pass into
USA in Feburary - CBP”_

Guess what? People on the left and right both ‘ANGRY’ that for different
reasons.

~~~
bonniemuffin
I think the point here is that the Angry reaction is a signifier of divisive
content. Divisiveness gets people talking, so the metrics look good even
though the discourse is unhealthy and tearing society apart on both sides.

------
qrbLPHiKpiux
> livestream

Watching _very_ closely to see how they handle this.

------
ykevinator
Fox news is the new 700 club. It's a steady diet of comfort food.

~~~
matt4077
Funny dog videos are “comfort food”. Fox News is hate porn.

~~~
SlowRobotAhead
Fox runs approx ~50% negative content on Trump. MSNBC run 92%+ negative [0]
[1] [2]

If your view of Fox News was largely based from 2008 and The Daily Show - How
could you know?

With a blanket statement like “Fox News is hate porn” you clearly aren’t
seeking alternative viewpoints. This isn’t even getting into that you are
lumping Fox NEWS and Fox News Channel Opinion Shows together which isn’t
unfair to do so long as you do the same with CNN and MSNBC alike).

[0] [https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/media-trump-
ha...](https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/media-trump-hatred-
coverage/)

[1] [https://www.npr.org/2017/10/02/555092743/study-news-
coverage...](https://www.npr.org/2017/10/02/555092743/study-news-coverage-of-
trump-more-negative-than-for-other-presidents)

[2]
[https://www.chicagotribune.com/g00/news/columnists/kass/ct-t...](https://www.chicagotribune.com/g00/news/columnists/kass/ct-
trump-media-coverage-harvard-
kass-0521-20170519-column.html?i10c.ua=4&i10c.encReferrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8%3d)

~~~
JMTQp8lwXL
Just because Fox is 50% negative on Trump and MSNBC is 92% negative, doesn't
mean in aggregate, Fox is less negative. There are other news topics, beyond
Trump. Hard to believe, I know, but there are.

------
alkibiades
why is fox news “angry” yet i’m sure feeds full of aoc and black lives matter
would be considered woke. Biased article. The anger is very prevalent with
both sides.

~~~
cowpig
"Angry" is the facebook reaction.

Dividing the world into two "sides" isn't good for us.

I don't think the world of political discourse is really divided into two
"sides" as you imply, despite that being useful for media that make money from
making people angry.

~~~
SlowRobotAhead
I’m open minded to what you are saying - but if you don’t think there are
“sides” or at least someone has a strong interest in promoting that idea - it
may because you are too firmly planted in one side yourself.

I agree with GP, as someone with no clear cut political ideology, it’s obvious
that wedge issues are formed and selected to fit divisions.

See no further than almost every establishment Democrat having talked about
border security for years, even building a wall in comments, now voting
against anything border related because “their side” has adopted that Trump
wants border security so they must be fully against it. [0]

[0]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gISMNv3qm8M&app=desktop](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gISMNv3qm8M&app=desktop)
(just picked a “Democrat for Wall” result, my personal opinions on that
completely aside. You could pick any wedge issue and find a more reasonable
time for it)

------
bennettfeely
It's still wild to me Fox News, with its 18.5M followers is still following
its boycott of Twitter, and hasn't tweeted since last November.

Neither has Fox News Politics, (2M followers) or Fox and Friends (1.3M
followers).

