"When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure."
The things broken about Facebook, are not just bugs, they are fundamental to what Facebook is. Pursuing "Likes" and views, inevitably becomes a target, and once it is a target, it is no longer a good metric of how many people actually like something.
To fix this, you would have to remove the "Like" counters, etc. Then, it would become much less addictive, and then it would also make a lot less money. Fixing Facebook, is about like trying to fix tobacco smoking; you would have to remove so much of what it is, that it would not be addictive any more, and therefore not financially viable at anything remotely like its current size.
While much of what's being aired is no surprise for many of us, there are many reasons why it's still extremely valuable with what she's doing. Regardless of her motivations in doing so.
Whistleblowers are extremely important and I think we would all be better of if more current and former employees, executives and contractors would be open to speak publicly and sincerely about these things.
Thank you OP, I wish more stepped up like you do.
Huh, I thought that was about shared resources getting ruined.
No tragedy of scale is only limited to one socio-economic sect. There's a proverb in Bengali- "When the village burns, can the temple be safe?"
I guess most have forgotten that you should not believe everything you see on the internet or even on your computer screen and Facebook is just a major component that is playing its part in fuelling these disinformation campaigns.
Facebook cannot and will never change. Even after the massive phone number data breach, It's been extremely overdue to delete your account.
The article exclusively focuses on the Global South, ie developing countries. There are a couple billion people for whom social media, and indeed Internet connectivity, are very new, and there are countries full of these people. It takes a while to develop the memetic antibodies that we as a society developed over time (remember chain emails?). We obviously still deal with excess credulousness, epistemic naivete, and the Internet Age's unfortunate interactions with these weaknesses. But these weaknesses used to be much, much worse in the US and other developed countries. Countries with substantial subpopulations new to the Internet are pitting the immunologically naive against exploits hardened by years of adversarial co-evolution.
But even scarier: this is what 'free speech' really looks like and that's an important right obviously.
Some people worry about the occasional 'ugly expression of hate' - which is a real concern, but in the grand scheme a problem that can be tackled, if there is authenticity.
But it's 1) the organic mass misinformation (things like QAnon) which influence incredible numbers of people and 2) the side-influence of things like we see in the article.
Media, just like Banking/Finance, much of Energy is a 'strategic industry'. It's always been protected. There is 0% chance that any nation would allow, for example, a Russian company with ties to Putin just go ahead and buy CNN and NBC.
Aside from that - there was/is cultures and standards within that industry that regulate information. All of them are susceptible to some 'national bias' and other biases run amok, that said, there is at least some degree of scrutiny and control.
On TikTok, you can make up whatever truth you want, millions will see it and that's that.
I'm seeing dozens of Pro/Anti Israeli/Palestinian TikToks and it's 99% rubbish, I just can't fathom what people's heads are being filled with, it's hard enough to get good information even from the 'regular news'.
If you make it so that public forums can be controlled by powers (political, external, commercial - whatever) - they will be.
So this is a legit new 'Giant Problem' we face.
At best, these serve as an indicator of quality for the public, but that function can be replaced by curation and validation by social media staff, or even just outright payment directly to the company.
At worst, these metrics are designed for social addiction anyway.
The 'like' button on Facebook was only introduced in 2009 anyway, 3 years after the platform became available to the public.
We probably need regulation to get to that point, but social media companies might very well make money money from this new world anyway. Moving towards greater user direct payment might also lessen reliance on advertising.
FB won't, of course, because it's a big part of what keeps people engaged. Getting a lot of likes is a big dopamine hit. If no one sees all your likes - well that's not as satisfying. If no one sees likes they are probably less likely to "like" something. I get that, but it's still a sad bottom-line based decision.
That's also a symptom of a problem outside of Facebook's control. From my personal experience, comparing myself to others has never been an authentic source of self confidence. But it's hard to remember that when modern culture and media values perfection and popularity.
Facebook is opportunistic and exploitative about it, where the entire product is engineered to be addictive keep you coming back. And so are thousands of other apps, news programs and articles, tv shows, etc.
There are people I unfollow just because their posts fill me with envy and a destructive hope that they secretly have problems they don't talk about. I can sit here and tell myself they might be under crushing debt or have bitterly miserable marriages - but that's a nasty, unhealthy frame of mind. Some people have better lives than I do. I have a better life than some other people. Expecting some sort of karmatic "fairness" isn't going to help.
As long as on the server side things are sorted by likes and such metrics people will always go out of their way to game the system.
In the early 2000's the original Counter-Strike game had a server browser utility and when it asked for a list of servers by default it gave them sorted by IP address. The result of this is that people would buy up and trade "low" IP addresses to be used as game servers.
There will always be a system to game.
If nothing else, it’s good feedback to know what resonates with your audience.
Who wants feature X on our product? You get a few saying yeah I’d pay an extra hundred for that, and very few who say no. Meanwhile most people just don’t want it, but never said so and the new feature is a dud.
You quickly learn there's a game. You go and find a bunch of other influencers roughly in your tier (getting some traffic but not rockstars) and you like their posts and follow them. They return the favor.
You comment (nicely) on their stuff, they return the favor. If you've ever played those obnoxious mobile games that want you to recruit your friends, same idea.
Likes and attention farming is basically a pyramid scheme with monopoly money.
Just because people 'like' them, doesn't mean they aren't ultimately destructive for society, and worthy of Government regulation/banning.
I think that the curation and validation of EG the lab leak hypothesis by Facebook and other social media companies shows that they cannot be trusted.
They would give out the 2FA seed if that was a requirement.
I understand that from the perspective of somebody living in a country where Facebook has all sorts of relevance/influence on people's daily lives (and certainly more than any company should ever have), this "abuse" of their precious products/services may be a serious thing.
However, I have seen other countries where many have already all but ditched Facebook (often after having been bombarded with local BS), or just never let it become a significant factor in their lives in the first place.
The problems these comprised accounts pose is mostly (if not only) a problem for Facebook itself. Facebook wants to sell the idea that a user account reveals information about the person operating that account. However, these user may have no interest in playing along with Facebook's wish to sell that information. They found a different use for Facebook's services. One that serves them better than Facebook's original intended.
It should also be noted that blatant disinformation, especially from governments, is very common in South America (and plenty of other places too). Many (maybe even most) locals grow up with it and are aware that nothing is as it appears. Especially when power is at play. It's probably more remarkable how naive people in the USA and EU still are , when it comes to their propaganda (be that state or commercially driven). Probably because their propaganda has been more subtle and less obviously in-your-face unbelievable. Either way, the way locals may look at propaganda and misinformation (or even their participation in it) may be very different from how people in the USA (or working at Facebook) look at it.
It's not that what she's saying is especially surprising, it's that it's rare for someone to be saying it at all.
No, that actually sounds tiny and insignificant. And all politics is generating fake engagement. It's just that before you had to be an entrenched political party / billionaire that can afford to spend 8 figures on PR and advertising.
15 years ago when MSN was existing i saw script with "login prompt" to share something important with your MSN buddies. Once user login - script dump his username/password to DB, login on MSN and share same text to all his buddies about game.
Of course link leading to same login prompt and least one buddy click on it and login.
So was easy to reproduce that even in Facebook using token of logged user.