
Facebook isn’t free speech, it’s algorithmic amplification optimized for outrage - benryon
https://techcrunch.com/2019/10/20/facebook-isnt-free-speech-its-algorithmic-amplification-optimized-for-outrage/
======
bhupy
Any form of media that earns its profit from viewership and selling
advertising, including broadcast and cable news and news radio, is optimized
for outrage. That's what attracts the eyeballs.

The "algorithmic" part is irrelevant.

~~~
Mountain_Skies
Sex attracts eyeballs too though it's a bit more difficult to sell Kraft
Cheese Singles using sex.

~~~
chrisseaton
I think they're just called 'Kraft Singles' \- they aren't cheese, even by
American definitions!

~~~
dpflan
That's interesting - FDA forced Kraft the name change due to the ingredients.

>
> [https://web.archive.org/web/20110110185442/http://www.fda.go...](https://web.archive.org/web/20110110185442/http://www.fda.gov/ICECI/EnforcementActions/WarningLetters/2002/ucm145363.htm)

~~~
lisper
That actually makes a surprisingly interesting read.

"Your firm's "Kraft Velveeta Pasteurized Process Cheese Spread" product is
misbranded within the meaning of Section 403(g)( 1) of the Act in that it
purports to be or is represented as a food, namely pasteurized process cheese
spread..."

So it's official: Velveeta is not food!

~~~
earenndil
No, velveeta is not a _specific_ named food--it's not the food which is named
cheese.

~~~
lisper
Yes, I get it. But the way it's phrased is still pretty funny.

------
mindgam3
When making up one one's mind about whether Zuck is sincere in his passionate
pleas for free speech, consider that:

1) he took no questions from reporters, only pre-moderated questions from
students, and

2) Facebook Live chat was scrubbed of any critical comments by algorithmic
filters.

[https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-
tech/ma...](https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/mark-
zuckerberg-facebook-algorithms-negative-responses-free-speech-live-
street-a9161256.html)

~~~
em3rgent0rdr
Freedom of speech and freedom of association do not imply any obligation to
listen to or respond to everything, and permit you to privately filter.

~~~
PavlovsCat
A _credible commitment to_ freedom of speech absolutely entails acknowledging
and responding to serious criticism.

------
privateSFacct
There was a period where feeds were just wall to wall outrage. Literally, at
trump, at obama, at random other friends on facebook. It was crazy.

Reality - life's much better getting off social media and hanging out with
friends in real life - and instagram has a bit less outrage machine stuff -
easier / quieter place to share pix of the kids playing and catchup with what
folks are up to.

~~~
gherkinnn
Regarding Insta, it’s interesting how some platforms are inherently more
peaceful.

The lack of links? Tiny, almost irrelevant image descriptions? Barely a
commenting system to speak of? Just vanity and pretty people.

It’s quite nice. And makes for a good case study.

~~~
mtgx
A vanity place with pretty people pushing random products in their feeds. How
is that "nice"?

~~~
gherkinnn
Not quite as poisonous as other places. And some people actually post nice
stuff.

It’s what you make of it and harder to go to shit.

~~~
edoceo
I remember when folk said that about FB vs the toxic platforms of those days

~~~
gherkinnn
Maybe a descent in to darkness is inevitable. We’ll see.

In the mean time, let’s also take a look at the dynamics of group chats.

Their whitelist and closed off nature seems to work very well indeed.

A new set of customs and etiquette is being developed regarding who is
invited, how does one exit such a group with grace, how do you remove someone?
Maybe just make a new one without the annoying party?

------
discordance
I’m more interested in why Facebook is marketing their platform to be about
free speech.

Is it a defensive move against potential regulation?

\- e.g. “if you regulate us, you’re taking away peoples right to free Speech”

~~~
thoughtstheseus
Yes, "free speech" protects it against lawsuits. See Section 230 of the
Communications Decency Act.

~~~
shaki-dora
No! No, No, no! This is the myth that won't die. Just actually read Sec 230!
It says, explicitly and understandably, that moderating an online community
_does not_ create a liability for user-created content. You do not have to
take a "hands off" attitude to avoid liability. That's the whole purpose of
Sec 230. For people to continue getting this _exactly wrong_ is absurd.

Background:
[https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/21/18700605/section-230-inte...](https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/21/18700605/section-230-internet-
law-twenty-six-words-that-created-the-internet-jeff-kosseff-interview)

~~~
thoughtstheseus
I made no mention that Facebook cannot moderate its platform. You're right
that categorizing it as user created content is more precise than saying free
speech.

------
robterrell
"The problem is that Facebook doesn’t offer free speech; it offers free
amplification."

Not even that -- make a group for your business or product or band or
political group, get people to sign up, and see how far free amplification
goes.

~~~
dheera
Also, not to mention their amplification is heavily biased in favor of content
uploaded to FB. Anything that contains external links is automatically
demoted, which means that among other things, photographers and video creators
have an edge over bloggers, for example. This also means that a friend posting
a link to their blog article about an assault encounter is much less likely to
appear in my FB feed than someone's picture hating on pineapple pizza. Which
is sad.

------
skybrian
It's odd to pretend this started with Facebook when it happens in almost every
online forum. There was plenty of outrage on the early Internet. We called it
a "flame war" back then.

Amplification is just a fancy word for sharing. You don't need a fancy
algorithm. It can be done using forwarding and reply-all. And chain letters
predate the Internet.

The software is a bit different, but the main difference is that we're more
connected than back then. There are more ways to copy messages and people get
notified faster.

------
zachguo
Sounds like how people argue against printing press in 15th century.

[https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110119/05022912725/fifte...](https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110119/05022912725/fifteenth-
century-technopanic-about-horrors-printing-press.shtml)

~~~
INGELRII
If printing press in the 15th century is the analogy, we will have Thirty
Years' War ahead of us.

Martin Luther was one of the first political troublemakers in the printing
press era. He used printed pamphlets to spread his message. His use of
language was extremely hateful and vulgar. Martin Luther would have been
perfect for Twitter or FB.

...

Martin Luther @MartinLuther

>“A natural donkey, which carries sacks to the mill and eats thistles, can
judge you – indeed, all creatures can! For a donkey knows it is a donkey and
not a cow. A stone knows it is a stone; water is water, and so on through all
the creatures. But you mad asses do not know you are asses.”

Martin Luther @MartinLuther

>“May God punish you, I say, you shameless, barefaced liar, devil’s
mouthpiece, who dares to spit out, before God, before all the angels, before
the dear sun, before all the world, your devil’s filth.”

Martin Luther @MartinLuther

>For you are an excellent person, as skillful, clever, and versed in Holy
Scripture as a cow in a walnut tree or a sow on a harp.”

Martin Luther @MartinLuther

>“You are a crude ass, and an ass you will remain!”

Martin Luther @MartinLuther

>You are desperate, thorough arch-rascals, murderers, traitors, liars, the
very scum of all the most evil people on earth. You are full of all the worst
devils in hell – full, full, and so full that you can do nothing but vomit,
throw, and blow out devils!”

More: [http://ergofabulous.org/luther/](http://ergofabulous.org/luther/)

~~~
vanderZwan
See also Clay Shirky's thoughts on this topic[0]

> _So, what happens when a medium suddenly puts a lot of new ideas into
> circulation? Now, this isn 't just a contemporaneous question. This is
> something we've faced several times over the last few centuries. When the
> telegraph came along, it was clear that it was going to globalize the news
> industry. What would this lead to? Well, obviously, it would lead to world
> peace. The television, a medium that allowed us not just to hear but see,
> literally see, what was going on elsewhere in the world, what would this
> lead to? World peace. (Laughter) The telephone? You guessed it: world peace.
> Sorry for the spoiler alert, but no world peace. Not yet. Even the printing
> press, even the printing press was assumed to be a tool that was going to
> enforce Catholic intellectual hegemony across Europe. Instead, what we got
> was Martin Luther's 95 Theses, the Protestant Reformation, and, you know,
> the Thirty Years' War._

> _All right, so what all of these predictions of world peace got right is
> that when a lot of new ideas suddenly come into circulation, it changes
> society. What they got exactly wrong was what happens next. The more ideas
> there are in circulation, the more ideas there are for any individual to
> disagree with. More media always means more arguing. That 's what happens
> when the media's space expands. And yet, when we look back on the printing
> press in the early years, we like what happened. We are a pro-printing press
> society._

We'll adapt to the new medium of the internet. Hopefully without a 30 years
war though.

[0]
[https://www.ted.com/talks/clay_shirky_how_the_internet_will_...](https://www.ted.com/talks/clay_shirky_how_the_internet_will_one_day_transform_government/transcript)

------
tripzilch
" ... but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Sure Facebook makes it worse, but the whole American cultural idea of free
speech _itself_ is already optimized for outrage.

Every single discussion about free speech I see Americans gloat and _pride_
themselves over specifically defending the most _offensive_ types of free
speech, because, just like self-flagellation, it shows of dedication to the
cause (in spite of common sense or decency).

I'll never forget the time when some extremist religious cooks wanted to bully
the funerals of gay US soldiers, and the entire fucking country came to the
defence of the bullies' right to freedom of harassment (I mean, speech),
instead of the grieving families.

Yeah that story is a bit old, but the cultural phenomenon hasn't changed a
bit. This was just the first time that I realized (again) that the blind
acceptance of anything as a fundamental truth (or right) is dumb as hell when
you take it to the logical extreme.

The more outrageous the type of speech is, the more vehemently Americans will
defend it, which they see as a point of pride.

And it is _this_ culture that built the world's largest social network
platforms, so you'll see this behaviour reflect there. It also just happens
these platforms are particularly fertile ground to both these types of
behaviour, so the entire problem gets broadcast, amplified and generally just
worse.

------
wasmburger
Don't people know how to use Facebook? There's no outrage on my newsfeed
because I've eliminated/unfollowed/hidden it. My cool friends and family are
left, I'm reading some pretty interesting groups I like, and I try not to
argue/provoke anyone when I make comments. This doesn't inhibit my speech, it
only makes me pay attention to tone. I wish the people who hate Facebook would
get off it and then talk about something else that interests them.

~~~
taurath
I spent 2 years trying to “fix” my feed before leaving Facebook altogether.
There was no way at the time - the alg would always surface the absolute worst
things that anyone I knew would post because the algorithm knew it would get
the most responses.

~~~
wasmburger
Maybe the section of the AI devoted to you has tagged you as someone who likes
outrage. Maybe you have posted some outrage stuff. My experience is opposite
from yours.

~~~
taurath
You’re right it’s probably my fault for constantly clicking “dislike, don’t
show more”, not the financial incentives of Facebook. That’s nice for you that
it’s the opposite.

------
stjohnswarts
Meh, I don't really see that much outrage on my feed, just family pics,
vacation pics, some memes, news from a few news outlets that I follow. People
are way overreacting.

~~~
vanderZwan
You don't represent everyone. I don't see much outrage either, but I have
heavily curated my feed list to get there.

------
awinter-py
I assume this author prefers techcrunch's megaphone to facebook's because TC
has an editorial tone and picks their experts. But wading through a crowd to
get your information is the new normal. The era of edited information is over.
There are pros and cons but this genie isn't going back in its bottle.

~~~
ineedasername
I'm not so sure that era if over, it's simply changed mechanisms. Instead of
direct moderation in the form of editorial boards working at the behest of
corporate owners, it's more indirect in the form of algorithms made by
developers at the behest of corporate owners. Decisions are still made that
present some information or viewpoints and not others. The flavor of bias will
likely be very different: in the past, one was the political vector. In the
algorithmic method such things are a side effect of a "click more" bias.

~~~
awinter-py
Agree with you that algos & crowd data are taking up some of the slack.

But editors are involved before & during the composition of a piece, and can
check for things like tone and fact checking. Editors aim for a consistent
minimum quality level for everything under their masthead. Algos & votes are
trying to do this job after the fact with fewer resources and no consistent
standard.

Not sure if the old newspaper model is more trustworthy, or even more
effective at surfacing critical information, but you don't have to wade
through as much filth to stay informed.

------
buboard
One does not exclude the other

~~~
msbarnett
In the abstract, no.

But we already know that Facebook excludes free speech: simply attempt to post
a photograph containing bare female breasts on Facebook or a Facebook-owned
property like Instagram, and it will swiftly be removed for violating
“community guidelines”.

So Facebook themselves have clearly excluded themselves from the former.

~~~
buboard
Fair. Though that has more to do with potentially being illegal. The more
serious (violation of free speech) thing is political censorship

~~~
msbarnett
> Though that has more to do with potentially being illegal.

Death threats, and many other forms of hate speech, are illegal in many
jurisdictions, and yet that is not used to justify a blanket ban on angry
text.

> The more serious (violation of free speech) thing is political censorship

It is not obvious to me that these things are even separable; to pick but one
obvious example, a topless photograph posted by advocates for an equal right
for both men and women to be topless in public is clearly political speech.

More broadly, look at someone like Larry Flint. The pornagraphic _is_ the
political. The current hand-wringing over “censorship of political speech”
seems terribly narrowly focused on but one fairly conservative form of speech,
to the point that it’s a bit hard to take at face value.

~~~
BurningFrog
> _a topless photograph posted by advocates for an equal right for both men
> and women to be topless in public is clearly political speech._

Sure, but you can state the same opinion with words, and not get censored.

If certain _opinions_ are forbidden from being expressed, it's a very
different thing.

~~~
msbarnett
> Sure, but you can state the same opinion with words, and not get censored

Sure, but that is in no sense what “free speech” means, so we should stop
pretending that “free speech” is what Facebook is offering.

~~~
BurningFrog
The core of free speech is definitely the right to express any opinion, no
matter how offensive.

------
ycombonator
Just thinking. If Hillary won the electoral college would we be hearing all
the relentless outrage about Facebook ?

------
baby
I think that is misdirection.

There are two parts that I don't think are contradicted by this article:

1) Facebook, twitter, and other social networks give people a voice and a
community.

2) If these platforms are censored in a country, it has a great effect on free
speech in the country.

Now, there are some good questions related to the article to ask here:

a) Are these platforms actually a problem because of the amplification of
outraging?

b) If they are, how does that impact our society?

c) Is there a way to empower people (and keep the benefits of current
platforms) without increasing the negative effects as well?

~~~
cptaj
Isn't the algorithm a form of censorship in and of itself?

It decides what to show and what to hide. Yes, you can drill down to find what
you want, but that will either never happen at scale or might be entirely
impractical.

~~~
baby
That's a good and I think more interesting question. I don't have a good
answer for you :)

------
Udik
This is all true, and so obvious that one feels like slapping one's forehead.
The algorithms are content-neutral, but they are based on the implicit
judgement of the users: and the users engage more with what is extraordinary
and outrageous.

So we're in a Black Mirror-esque moment in which the nervous system of
humanity is suffering of an anxiety disorder, possibly psychosis, caused by
the subtle but constant amplification of emotionally negative thoughts and
paranoid ideation.

I think the system needs some form of biologically inspired attenuation
mechanism, again based purely on engagement rather than content: for example
reducing the amplification of nodes that are "always on", or reducing
dissemination past a certain level (WhatsApp has already limited the number of
forwards of a message, I think). The problem with these solutions is how to
reconcile them with the commercial purpose of the platform.

Probably we'll end up building some resistance, partly cultural and partly
enforced by laws; hopefully before it provokes some major catastrophe.

------
resters
The algorithm is optimized for emotional potency that leads to increased
engagement. Outrage is just one of the more monetizable emotions the algorithm
is good at.

Consider also schadenfreude, in-group signaling, etc. All of these loom large
on Facebook.

Compared to traditional consolidated media companies, Facebook does have the
potential to be a better medium for “speech”.

But censorship is inevitable when advertising looms so large on the platform,
so inevitably many forms of speech will be suppressed, leaving only the stuff
that is the most establishment friendly.

Note that Hillary Clinton just made a statement accusing Tulsi Gabbard of
being funded by Russia. A logical next step would be for Facebook to pull ads
that are in favor of Gabbard. In essence, major party views are intrinsically
conservative and uncontroversial.

What are Gabbard’s fringe views? She opposes some of the military/warmaking
that Hillary made her career supporting.

------
emmelaich
This Techcrunch title describes itself.

------
CryptoPunk
It should be up to Facebook to decide what content to show, not social
activists or politicians. That's what free speech means.

------
calvinbhai
Very true. And I believe the same is true with conventional media

"Newspaper / TV News Channel isn’t free speech, it’s non-algorithmic
amplification optimized for outrage"

------
ctdonath
The notion of free speech isn’t advocated to protect popular speech.

------
a-dub
isn't this argument like 2-3y old now? didn't they say they were going to
deprioritize politics and boost cats?

------
pjc50
An important questions to ask is: for each visible element on the page, whose
speech is it? The stuff inside the boxes is the speech of the users.
Everything outside, _including the order and choice of the posts_ , is
Facebook's speech.

This is even more obvious with YouTube. The choice of who they recommend is
Google's. Which means it's reasonable to ask them why they're recommending
fascist and antivax propaganda.

------
api
I call it the CRASER: CRaziness Amplification by Stimulation of Engagement
with Reactivity.

------
vanniv
If it is speech, it is free.

That's how free speech works. It even applies to asshats.

------
tdy721
The outrageous gets eyeballs, and isn’t that the real metric they are after?

------
temac
Why would Facebook have anything to do with free speech?

This title sounds as "strange" as: requiring a driver license is not in
contradiction with the right to travel. Well, yes, ok, but that's kind of
trivial because everybody (except a bunch of truly insane people) agree with
that.

~~~
discordance
Zuckerberg just gave a talk on the importance of free speech, referenced in
the first paragraph -

[https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2019/10/mark-zuckerberg-
stands-...](https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2019/10/mark-zuckerberg-stands-for-
voice-and-free-expression/)

------
macinjosh
Facebook is the capitalization of the free speech of others on a mass scale.

------
diego
Facebook has nothing to do with free speech. Free speech is "you don't go to
jail for saying something." You're not entitled to a platform for shouting out
loud.

~~~
doubleunplussed
This is just a slogan people keep saying, and whilst it's useful fodder for
one side of the debate, I'd encourage you to question it. I'm sure you're
smart enough to understand the concept of free speech outside of what is
protected by the US constitution. That is what people are often talking about,
and even though their legal recourse (in the US) is often limited to only
preventing government censorship, we are free to have debates about what is
right and wrong about allowing or censoring other kinds of speech.

Saying "you're not entitled to X" with reference to current laws is
disregarding that people are actually arguing against those laws, or about
situations where they don't apply. Even when people are talking about the law,
some laws are unjust: quoting present law is not an argument about anything
except what the law is.

I'd also encourage you to consider that the writers of the US constitution
were in favour of free speech generally, and almost certainly would have tried
to constitutionally entrench a broader concept of it than they did, if it were
practical to do so. The decision to only prevent government censorship is a
practical one - government stopping others from censoring was (is) considered
outside of the role of the government, or too impractical to actually enforce.
That doesn't mean the writers of the constitution thought that other kinds of
censorship were _ok_. They just didn't think rules about them belonged in a
document about the US federal government.

Finally, most countries do not have freedom of speech entrenched in their
constitutions, but "free speech" is still a phrase in these places, and they
are not talking about the US constitution. Free speech has historically been
considered an important right in post-enlightenment societies, regardless of
legal protections, and regardless of trendy people on the 'right side of
history' saying otherwise. The fact that oppressed people are presently
somewhat anti-free-speech is due to the unusual situation of them having
friends in high places. This is not usually the case, and throwing out the
ideal of free speech to the greatest extent permitted by the US constitution
does a great disservice to future oppressed people who are unlikely to have
the media and tech companies on their side, as well as present oppressed
people who have fallen through the cracks because their flavour of oppression
isn't currently in vogue.

~~~
diego
No need for the patronizing, almost obnoxious tone. I mostly disagree with
what you just said, and not for lack of questioning. Current laws or not,
you’re not entitled to the attention of others, and I don’t think you should
be. If you want attention, you need to earn it.

~~~
doubleunplussed
I don't disagree with you, but since the censorship and deplatforming people
have been arguing about lately is the kind that prevents people from talking
to willing audiences they have 'earned' already, that seems besides the point.

~~~
diego
Censorship and deplatforming exist because companies have nothing to do with
what was originally defined as free speech, and lots of us believe this is
fine (including myself). If you want to take the phrase "free speech" and make
it mean what you want it to mean, that's on you.

------
isoprophlex
Of course it is. It is the logical conclusion of adtech colliding with our
collective immaturity when it comes to deciding what constitutes being a
decent human being.

Or, in other words, it is the current belief that everyone is entitled to
voice and spread their opinions, weaponized by greed slash laissez-faire
capitalism

------
RangerScience
Feels relevant: [https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/10/30/sort-by-
controversial/](https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/10/30/sort-by-controversial/)

Basically OP, but amped up and told kind of like a ghost story.

------
melicerte
What about Twitter ?

------
lacker
Facebook can put whatever content in the news feed they want. I can choose
whether to read Facebook or not. That sounds like free speech to me!

------
hnaccy
Journalism isn't free speech, it's manufacturing consent.

~~~
doubleunplussed
Por qué no los dos?

------
ptest1
Comment deleted because this doesn’t appear to be the right place to discuss
nuanced issues about Facebook.

~~~
cbcoutinho
Someone a few days ago linked to this snippet of an interview with Naval
Ravikant on Joe Rogan's podcast. Their lack of differentiating themselves from
publishers has put them on a slippery slope

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=3661&v=3qHkcs3kG44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=3661&v=3qHkcs3kG44)

~~~
dredmorbius
What this snippet misses is the fact that FB, YT, G+, and Twitter _determine
what is presented and offered to users_. Algorithm or no, their fingers,
hands, feet and bodies are all over the scale.

------
bigred100
In many ways, algorithms, IQ, and the internet have ruined humanity. Had
Facebook recognized itself as a funny website for college students to talk to
each other and not begun all these complex strategies, they’d not likely have
caused such damage, and we’d all have been better off. I believe that most
people, and organizations, should just set their sights lower.

