9 ms·

Journalists decry Facebook experiment's impact on democracy

195 points by guuz 9y ago

dustfinger 9y ago
This was recently posted here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15552252 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15552252
malvosenior 9y ago
Why don’t these publishers band together and launch their own news aggregator if they think that’s something people want? I don’t see Facebook owing them a platform here and from a personal perspective politics can’t be removed from my _social_ feed fast enough.
- sharemywin 9y ago
  but if you spent a bunch of time liking/following things on facebook and it's not in your feed anymore, a good chuck of your "experience" is gone. so it's not just the publishers that are losing out. Personally, I hate facebook and don't use it.
  - malvosenior 9y ago
    I think if that was going to be a major issue for user engagement that FB wouldn’t be making this move.
  - surge 9y ago
    Yeah, the more they "improve" it, the less I want to use it.
- anigbrowl 9y ago
  - Journalists =/= publishers - Ignores non-negligible capital costs - Complaining about politics in your social feed is asinine since many people are interested in politics and choose to share that interest socially, so you're gonna hear about it anyway
  - malvosenior 9y ago
    > Journalists =/= publishers The article is about publishers (and the journalists who work for them). Not independent journalists/bloggers. > Ignores non-negligible capital costs That’s the same problem every service in the internet has. It’s pretty cheap to get started though so costs would come as usage scaled up. > Complaining about politics in your social feed is asinine since many people are interested in politics and choose to share that interest socially, so you're gonna hear about it anyway I would unfriend or mute those people so not sure why my point is “asinine”. In fact if your friends are talking about politics then this article’s topic is non-applicable since it’s not about filtering content produced by your friends.
    - em3rgent0rdr 9y ago
      > unfriend or mute those people... It's funny how these comments illustrate how different people use Facebook for different things. I for one mute people who post too much personal stuff, so I rather primarily use fb for discussing politics.
      - malvosenior 9y ago
        Indeed. For me it’s nice to catch up on the truly personal moments my friends are having. Politics has invaded every aspect of life (professional, media saturation, Internet discussion...) so it’s nice to be able to tailor FB enough to not see it there.
        mcny 9y ago
        For me, Facebook is just messenger - a fancy Rolodex. A way to get in touch with period you don't talk to often enough to always have their updated contract information. Get caught up and move the conversation elsewhere as soon as I can — be it WhatsApp or signal. I can't trust the feed to show me everything in a reverse chronological order so it is worthless to me. In hindsight, I must agree that WhatsApp was a good buy and probably a good thing for Facebook to own.
- cwperkins 9y ago
  Exactly this - when did Facebook become a platform for everyone I'm associated with to blurt their opinions. I think there needs to be another forum because the only thing I am interested in using Facebook for is to catch up on my friends doings. Weddings, vacations, etc.
  - AndrewKemendo 9y ago
    It philosophically transitioned away from the "personal friend update feed" to the "hub of all social networking on the internet" a few years ago. I just kind of realized that happened in the last few months and it wierds me out. What used to be personal stuff between friends and family, they want you to share with everyone.
    - edejong 9y ago
      Key takeaway is: what you think is personal stuff on a social site, never really was to begin with.
  - zjaffee 9y ago
    For most younger people, the solution to this is some combination of snapchat and instagram.
- PakG1 9y ago
  Journalists creating a new service wouldn't have an impact on whether your feed has politics. Only Facebook and your Facebook friends can influence that.
- medfok 9y ago
  If you construct a community resource, you have a responsibility to the community. This transcends business interest, which is illegitimate and immoral. If you want to be a part of my life you need to be responsible.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - gt_ 9y ago
    As things stand, Facebook has no responsibility beyond those required by law and market. This is not an endorsement of anything, but a reminder of the reality.
    - jeffdavis 9y ago
      No, they have no legal responsibilities beyond those required by law. If they behave unethically we can certainly complain about it, and possibly take some kind of action if we feel strongly enough (e.g. boycott).
      - gt_ 9y ago
        Like I said, they have a responsibility defined by the market. I’m not sure how your argument extends their responsibility any more than I did. You comment concerning the users’ freedoms is, sure, correct; that’s the market I’m talking about. Please clarify your argument if you have one.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
return0 9y ago
The journalists should really blame themselves for using facebook in the first place. They knew what they were buying into.
- surge 9y ago
  Sadly, it's where their audience is.
  - return0 9y ago
    i dont know. it didn't have to be. journalists embraced social media so tightly both for getting input for their work as well as for audience. They 'd hate to admit it but they became lazy. Partly, they made facebook (and twitter) as mainstream as it is now.
    - stevenwoo 9y ago
      I don't think it was an obvious causal relationship ala newspapers making Facebook relevant. I worked as a contractor at the Mercury News a few years ago and the vast majority of their income came from those Frys' flyers. It might as well be a subsidiary of Frys. Craigslist/Ebay/online marketplaces killed the classifieds/ads that paid for fat newspapers for a quarter when I was a kid in the 70' and 80's. Newspapers were pretty desperate for eyeballs when their income started sinking then in the early days of Facebook and now for survival.
    - dredmorbius 9y ago
      Facebook has over a billion daly actve mobile, and over two billion monthly active users. It is the biggest single media platform in the history of the planet. If you're in the audience business, it's simply a fact of life. https://zephoria.com/top-15-valuable-facebook-statistics/amp/ https://zephoria.com/top-15-valuable-facebook-statistics/amp... Media tends to winner-take-all dynamics for various reasons. Zipf's law means that at best a small number of outlets will be significant. These are characteristics of media platforms, period. Not journalists' or publishers' fault.
- 9y ago
Inception 9y ago
This is why you don't put all of your eggs into someone else's basket.
B1FF_PSUVM 9y ago
Old agents of disintermediation complain of new agents of disintermediation. More news at 11.
- jack9 9y ago
  Indeed, the usual as usual. More speech from sources = goodright unless it's someone else's different message to a wider audience. Then it's badwrong. As long as you have the money to shout it loud enough and long enough you have the same equity of audience as anyone else.
markyuckerberg 9y ago
There was a time when patio11 was going through a phase calling out Zynga as one of the shadiest companies around. I remember thinking "If Zynga is that bad, then what about Facebook?" Facebook's ability and willingness to manipulate just about everything in sight - WhatsApp ad policies, privacy policy changes, arbitrary censorship of content, providing clear misinformation to legal entities for e.g. the promise to EU that they cannot infer/merge user profiles, the absolute shitshow that is shadow profiles - in line with corporate profits is starting to make Zynga look angelic in comparison.
- dang 9y ago
  Substantive critique of Facebook is fine on HN. To illustrate the point, I used a moderation mechanism to rescue the OP from being penalized, which is why you see it on the front page now. That said, you can't do this with an account named "markyuckerberg". We want thoughtful conversation, not cheap shots or personal attacks. Perhaps Zuckerberg needs no protecting when it comes to these things, but HN certainly does, so I've banned this account. If you want to comment on HN, a good place to start would be with a username that doesn't violate the spirit of the site, re which please see https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html. Btw, special-purpose accounts aren't allowed here either. We're hoping for good conversation, not pre-existing agendas.
  - nkurz 9y ago
    Perhaps Zuckerberg needs no protecting when it comes to these things Thanks, Dan! But regardless of one's feelings toward Facebook, I think Mark Zuckerberg should be treated with respect here just like anyone else. Not only is it good for the overall tone of the site, but there are enough "public figures" in tech that use this site that a flat "no personal attacks" (without exceptions for fame) seems like the best policy.
    - dang 9y ago
      I agree completely. But even for people who don't feel that way, there are good reasons for HN to have this rule. Breaking it degrades the community and oneself.
kelvin0 9y ago
FB is like a big dumb blind elephant. FB users are people expecting to get on the elephant for their daily commute ... and expect to get from A to B in a timely fashion. Fail.
thrusong 9y ago
I think there will be increasing scrutiny over Facebook's ability to wipe their hands while claiming "it's free speech." There's a reason the media were information gatekeepers: there's a responsibility to be accurate and unbiased. Facebook's product was manipulated and helped Donald Trump get elected by swaying public opinion. There has to be consequences- sorry, but in my opinion not every voice deserves to be equal.
- dnautics 9y ago
  >there's a responsibility to be accurate and unbiased In what universe is this true? Historically journalists have had long eras of questionable judgement, e.g. the yellow journalism era. Sometimes it feels like they're not really any better. Journalists have been information gatekeepers because of a structural monopoly. As this monopoly is being broken down by technology, of course the entrenched interests will clamor against the disruptors, claiming a sense of propriety that never really existed in the first place.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- malvosenior 9y ago
  > Facebook's product was manipulated and helped Donald Trump get elected by swaying public opinion. That is definitely speculation and not fact.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- cobookman 9y ago
  > and helped Donald Trump get elected Do you have actual proof of that. For all we know if facebook didn't exist the population might have voted even more towards Trump.
  - 1337biz 9y ago
saas_sam 9y ago
Maybe the problem is trying to centrally control vast and varied resources to reach some kind of "fair" outcome. Wait, Silicon Valley techies wouldn't be in favor of anything like that, would they? Ohhh....
SonicSoul 9y ago
it's the old Facebook honeypot. So easy to share your content with users, until FB decides what will and will not be shared. http://theoatmeal.com/comics/reaching_people http://theoatmeal.com/comics/reaching_people
urbanxs 9y ago
"Experiment's"
c3534l 9y ago
> The experiment, which began 19 October and is still ongoing, involves limiting the core element of Facebook’s social network to only personal posts and paid adverts. This is the Orwellian outcry? I'm much more concerned about the idea of everyone getting their news (especially passively) from Facebook and making Facebook some sort of "social network" instead.
- em3rgent0rdr 9y ago
  Regardless of how people getting their news (TV, news sites, or Facebook), there is always some entity controlling what news gets seen to some extent.
- PhasmaFelis 9y ago
  The Orwellian part is that they rolled it out in Guatemala, where: > Soy502 is a new site in an unstable democracy where journalists and civil society groups already face an uphill battle to be heard. “We currently have a smear campaign that is targeting journalists, which is really vicious, fuelled by interest groups who are against the anti-corruption drive in our country,” she says. “We are regarded in the region as a success story on new media for the digital age. This can destroy us.”
  - ComodoHacker 9y ago
    If I understand the problem correctly (I'm not a Facebook user) their articles, which were being stuffed into users' feed, now require one more click from the user to be seen. And if their audience don't do that click now, they overestimate importance of their work.
josephwegner 9y ago
This reads pretty similar to the cries that come out whenever Google updates their search algorithm. It's as if people believe there is some code big internet companies must live by, that ensures they never change. These companies live by the code of the market - they will happily make changes that make them more profitable. It does not make them evil if a small customer gets caught in the crosshairs - it just means that small customers need to be resilient to change.
- cisanti 9y ago
  And if you complain about low internet speed pick up a showel and start digging that fiber. I don't see a reason why cable companies need to cater your need for Netflix.
  - icelancer 9y ago
    Was Facebook granted a government-sanctioned monopoly like Comcast was?
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - girvo 9y ago
      Does it matter where the monopoly came from? Honest question, I’m genuinely unsure myself
      - dingo_bat 9y ago
        Easy answer: yes it does. Think of something else like monopoly: money. Does it matter where your money came from? A drug network killing teenagers across the country or selling iphones to rich people. One makes you a criminal, the other makes you Steve Jobs.
        alphaalpha101 9y ago
        This is the most ridiculous non-sequitur I've ever read.
dillondoyle 9y ago
I assume probably a response to decreased engagement metrics. My 'sample of one': I don't look at FB anymore, going from a daily user to maybe once a month if that. I would likely re-engage if only 'human social' posts were in my main feed. Sounds like I could still find public page posts and meme video shit if I want in the second feed. I could manually attempt to manipulate this outcome but the time and effect would pale in comparison to what FB could do fairly simply. As an advertiser, I would love this change if it does in fact bring daily users back to engaging on FB. I already pay for reach, but much of it is mobile and off FB news feed. I wonder what their metrics for ad engagement would show though: does ad engagement increase if the ad is the only non 'human social' post in view, or does the mixed content that 'blends' an ad into similar looking content produce more engagement (perhaps through engagements that users don't realize are on an ad)? And if engagement is higher because of this blending 'trick' engagement, do I actually want to pay for it or do I want to pay maybe a higher price for more 'authentic' engagement? Probably very hard to measure, which is why in my business we use polling to look beyond metrics FB reports...
- frank_abagnale 9y ago
  I think FB only cares about maximizing impressions (if the ad is CPM) and clicks (if the ad is CPC). Maximizing user's time by decreasing efficiency with dark patterns seems to be the name of the game.
  - dillondoyle 9y ago
    Simplistically yes. I am not an engineer there so I don't know for sure, but my experience says its a bit more complicated since you can have a more complex bid that might be bidding CPM but uses LTV or CPA or some other metric (ie for us we are happy to pay $50 CPM to reach certain voter who donate to campaigns). Increasing impression load might work short term (or maybe even might work in majority of cases so my point might be moot) - until the end metric that ad buyers care about takes a hit (which in itself is a balance of quality/cost so again, it's complicated). I mean it's harder to measure for brand advertising, but we track very closely lifetime value and persuasion through surveys, so the bid method doesn't matter as much to us - and FB is probably the best IMHO at letting us bring in whatever value data we want and optimizing for that.
guuz 9y ago
FB is not obligated to listen to every media outlet in the world when it decides to change its product, but certainly it's ethical to estimate the impact a change will cause on society, how small it can be. Remember: they are not testing the new feed in established and healthy democracies, but in places where independent journalism needs to gain traction
delhanty 9y ago
Have no love for Facebook but: The Guardian would publish this wouldn't they? This is a good idea by former editor (1975-95 [1]) Peter Preston: move The Guardian back to Manchester from London and trim the wage bill in the process. [2] Perhaps then they might slow the cash burn of their Scott "Trust" endowment (£838.3m 2015) ... [3] Also, if they weren't quite so London centric they might be less surprised by "events" outside their Facebook bubbles like Brexit and Trump. I write the above as someone born in London, but now an expat (Japan) who voted against Brexit, but wasn't surprised or offended that others didn't. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/profile/peterpreston https://www.theguardian.com/profile/peterpreston [2] https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/apr/09/guardian-manchester-move-rumour-london-media https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/apr/09/guardian-manch... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Scott_Trust_Limited https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Scott_Trust_Limited
- peoplewindow 9y ago
  The Guardian has been pushing the line that non-Guardian news sources are 'dangerous for democracy' for a long time now. Other similar publications like the NYT have the same viewpoint. It's impressive double think: what they mean is, exposure to views they disagree with might cause people to vote against things Guardian writers like and for things Guardian writers dislike, therefore, it's important that such people are not exposed to "wrong" views. The assumption that the Guardian can't or shouldn't argue against those views is held very deep - if they took opposing views seriously and tried to engage in debate, that would "legitimise" such views or worse, they might lose the argument. I used to be a Guardian reader. I read it religiously around the time Snowden's stuff was getting published there. But I came to find it manipulative and extremist. The amount of vitriolic hate they publish in their comment is free section is very disturbing. If they go bankrupt I won't miss them.
  - delhanty 9y ago
    This. The publishing that they did concerning Snowden was important for journalistic freedom. All that stuff stopped after Katherine Viner became editor in 2015. I do read it occasionally - just have uBlock Origin picker handy each time her face pops up begging for funds ...
diogenescynic 9y ago
Facebook has gotten worse and worse to use. I’m still surprised it hasn’t gone the way of MySpace. Most of my friends don’t post nearly as much. I’m sure that’s partly getting older, but it also just didn’t seem fun anymore. Reading about all the the scummy stuff Facebook has done doesn’t thrill me either.
- _rpd 9y ago
  > it also just didn’t seem fun anymore That's exactly why they are doing this experiment. To answer the question: will people come back if they don't have to wade through all this stuff they don't really care about?
PakG1 9y ago
In David Kirkpatrick's book The Facebook Effect, which was basically the positive counterpart book at the time to Ben Mezrich's The Accidental Billionaires: The Founding of Facebook, Kirkpatrick talks on the first few pages how Facebook's viral and collaborative social network allowed for protests and eventually political revolutions to be organized in various countries. He says that one guy was so thankful for Facebook that he named his own child with the name Facebook. If Facebook back then was lauded for enabling online communication in a way that wasn't possible before that led to political revolution for certain nations, it is ironic that these journalists are complaining about Facebook killing their click count by taking their official pages out of the mainstream feed. Taking their official pages out of the mainstream feed perhaps brings Facebook closer back to the Facebook that Kirkpatrick wrote about. This leads me to wonder whether the journalists are worried about political freedoms or really their income while raising the banner of political freedoms. The fact of the matter is that if Facebook indiscriminately removes these pages from the mainstream feed, they'll remove "good" pages, but they'll also remove "bad" pages (and let's not even get into which news media are "good" and which are "bad"). Today, we can see that Facebook is like any other technological product: it is amoral and can be used for "good" and "bad". Even though Zuckerberg now concedes that Facebook may have had a part to play in Trump's election, an idea he at first thought was nonsense, and even though he now makes overtures of wanting to help ensure elections around the world are fair (where a private American organization may or may not even be the right party to do this), Zuckerberg in fact does not have much ability to control what happens on his network. At a fundamental level, Facebook is about online social activity. Even if he manages to successfully ban politically manipulative ads (and which ads aren't?), bans fake accounts with amazing accuracy, and gets reviewed by government committees for political ads the way television and radio get reviewed, Facebook cannot survive without the lifeblood of its members engaging in online social activity. It would not be easy to ban all the "bad" people if there are a lot of "bad" people who still "deserve" their freedom of political speech. So there will likely always be an attack surface for some smart strategist to take advantage of Facebook and spread ideas maliciously and manipulatively. Pandora's Box has been opened, and it's not going to get closed again. And if people mute those they don't like, then all it does is increase individual echo chambers, which in turn then increase political polarization. If technology is amoral and can be used for both good and bad, depending on the user, we should have seen this future coming from a mile away. But we didn't, I certainly didn't. It's funny how all the lessons from 1984, Brave New World, and all the other classics have come true in so many ways. Not sure if there was a book that warned about this type of future discussed in these comment threads, but anyway. I should have seen it coming and not sure why I didn't. So we'll live in an era where information and misinformation seem to become one.
cocktailpeanuts 9y ago
This tells more about the journalists than Facebook. Facebook has always been the same. It's journalists who sold their soul so that they can make money. Furthermore, it's funny hearing this hypocrisy coming from journalists, since they are the ones who are throwing away their "journalistic integrity" to make money. It's impossible to come across a mainstream publication with unbiased point of view nowadays. They have to write polarizing articles to gain more eyeballs since otherwise no one will have enough attention to read their articles. They should realize there's a bigger opportunity here but instead all they're focused on is short therm revenue and complaining about how Facebook (who focuses obsessively on long term value) is being unfair.
- smadge 9y ago
  The thing about rational actors is that their options are severely limited by the market. The publishers only choice is to follow the money and play the game or perish. And of corse complain about it.
  - rtpg 9y ago
    I bet there are some good opportunties for some concentrated journalism that people will find interesting enough to build a "proper business" untainted by as much advertising. The success of patreon has me believe that you could probably get enough rich people to pay (say) $50/month for a news source that feels less of a need to pander. I don't want to be too dismissive, but even though I like the coverage I get from the NY Times, I'm still financing a bunch of think pieces on the fashion industry, their cooking apps, "78 hours in X" articles, movie reviews, Bret Stephens op-eds, "Republicans place doubt on Hillary for X"-style both sides pieces, etc. I mean, sure, journalism. And its a big outfit, we don't all need to be writing about the opiod crisis. But I would like to think there's a market. Bonus points if you make this and get a rich person to help finance it. The subscription can help ease the losses whatever billionaire ends up taking. Medium is already kinda this.
    - cocktailpeanuts 9y ago
      I agree with you on everything except for the part about "Medium is already kinda this". Medium has also made the same mistake of introducing bias even though they claim to want to become a platform. A lot of people see Medium as a place where a bunch of self-important people, wannabe activists, growth hackers, social justice warriors live. You can see that by the type of posts they promote on their main page as well as their official Twitter account. It's really hard to become unbiased when the organization has a clear owner. I am hoping that the new decentralized technologies will inspire some people to come up with a completely transparent and non biased system for true journalism.
0xbear 9y ago
Where by “impact on democracy” they mean impact on their ad revenues.
- _rpd 9y ago
  Yes, but also impact on their ability to generate and wield political power. Journalism is practically non-profit these days, but there'll never be a shortage of journalists looking to marshal the Fourth Estate.
  - 0xbear 9y ago
    That, too. Everyone is so eager to offer their “valuable” opinion and omit the parts of the story that don’t conform to that opinion.
interfixus 9y ago
My visits to Zuckerberg-land are few and getting fewer. Mainly to pick up the occasional personal message and redirect it to a more civilized channel. And when I visit, I am heavily insulated by various sorts of filters - I never see ads or silly recommendations. So clearly, I'm in a bubble, and my ignorance is self-wrought, but honestly, I never get it when there's talk about people reading news - fake or otherwise - on Facebook. How do you even do that? Why would anyone? What am I missing? If I ever did see a news item there, my first instinct would be distrust, my first potential reaction would be seeking out some external source, and if none could be found, absolute dismissal. Two billion users do realise FB is nothing but a cheap, tacky marketing ploy, yes? They do, don't they? Please!
- remarkEon 9y ago
  Narrator: they do not.
  - interfixus 9y ago
    And apparently, neither do several downvoters here.
dingo_bat 9y ago
Ah, poor "journalists"! But on point, I'd pay a small fee to make my FB feed free of posts by any professional news outlet.
nofilter 9y ago
I don't get it, in the olden days where forums were popular everyone knew that the final say of the content in that forum was of the administrators. Now, however, we join a website we do not own, run by people we do not know, and expect them to what, do as we say? Yeah, doesn't work like that. I'm not supporting what Facebook does, but I'm not against it either. Like it, use it, don't like it, don't use it.
- guuz 9y ago
  The forums were/are usually catering to niches. Facebook is a behemoth. To many people, the internet is basically it.
known 9y ago
"Media does not spread FREE opinion; It GENERATES opinion" --Oswald,1918 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_of_the_West https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_of_the_West

195 points by guuz 9y ago

This was recently posted here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15552252 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15552252

malvosenior 9y ago

Why don’t these publishers band together and launch their own news aggregator if they think that’s something people want? I don’t see Facebook owing them a platform here and from a personal perspective politics can’t be removed from my _social_ feed fast enough.

sharemywin 9y ago
but if you spent a bunch of time liking/following things on facebook and it's not in your feed anymore, a good chuck of your "experience" is gone. so it's not just the publishers that are losing out. Personally, I hate facebook and don't use it.
- malvosenior 9y ago
  I think if that was going to be a major issue for user engagement that FB wouldn’t be making this move.
- surge 9y ago
  Yeah, the more they "improve" it, the less I want to use it.
anigbrowl 9y ago
- Journalists =/= publishers - Ignores non-negligible capital costs - Complaining about politics in your social feed is asinine since many people are interested in politics and choose to share that interest socially, so you're gonna hear about it anyway
- malvosenior 9y ago
  > Journalists =/= publishers The article is about publishers (and the journalists who work for them). Not independent journalists/bloggers. > Ignores non-negligible capital costs That’s the same problem every service in the internet has. It’s pretty cheap to get started though so costs would come as usage scaled up. > Complaining about politics in your social feed is asinine since many people are interested in politics and choose to share that interest socially, so you're gonna hear about it anyway I would unfriend or mute those people so not sure why my point is “asinine”. In fact if your friends are talking about politics then this article’s topic is non-applicable since it’s not about filtering content produced by your friends.
  - em3rgent0rdr 9y ago
    > unfriend or mute those people... It's funny how these comments illustrate how different people use Facebook for different things. I for one mute people who post too much personal stuff, so I rather primarily use fb for discussing politics.
    - malvosenior 9y ago
      Indeed. For me it’s nice to catch up on the truly personal moments my friends are having. Politics has invaded every aspect of life (professional, media saturation, Internet discussion...) so it’s nice to be able to tailor FB enough to not see it there.
      - mcny 9y ago
        For me, Facebook is just messenger - a fancy Rolodex. A way to get in touch with period you don't talk to often enough to always have their updated contract information. Get caught up and move the conversation elsewhere as soon as I can — be it WhatsApp or signal. I can't trust the feed to show me everything in a reverse chronological order so it is worthless to me. In hindsight, I must agree that WhatsApp was a good buy and probably a good thing for Facebook to own.
cwperkins 9y ago
Exactly this - when did Facebook become a platform for everyone I'm associated with to blurt their opinions. I think there needs to be another forum because the only thing I am interested in using Facebook for is to catch up on my friends doings. Weddings, vacations, etc.
- AndrewKemendo 9y ago
  It philosophically transitioned away from the "personal friend update feed" to the "hub of all social networking on the internet" a few years ago. I just kind of realized that happened in the last few months and it wierds me out. What used to be personal stuff between friends and family, they want you to share with everyone.
  - edejong 9y ago
    Key takeaway is: what you think is personal stuff on a social site, never really was to begin with.
- zjaffee 9y ago
  For most younger people, the solution to this is some combination of snapchat and instagram.
PakG1 9y ago
Journalists creating a new service wouldn't have an impact on whether your feed has politics. Only Facebook and your Facebook friends can influence that.
medfok 9y ago
If you construct a community resource, you have a responsibility to the community. This transcends business interest, which is illegitimate and immoral. If you want to be a part of my life you need to be responsible.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- gt_ 9y ago
  As things stand, Facebook has no responsibility beyond those required by law and market. This is not an endorsement of anything, but a reminder of the reality.
  - jeffdavis 9y ago
    No, they have no legal responsibilities beyond those required by law. If they behave unethically we can certainly complain about it, and possibly take some kind of action if we feel strongly enough (e.g. boycott).
    - gt_ 9y ago
      Like I said, they have a responsibility defined by the market. I’m not sure how your argument extends their responsibility any more than I did. You comment concerning the users’ freedoms is, sure, correct; that’s the market I’m talking about. Please clarify your argument if you have one.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]

return0 9y ago

The journalists should really blame themselves for using facebook in the first place. They knew what they were buying into.

surge 9y ago
Sadly, it's where their audience is.
- return0 9y ago
  i dont know. it didn't have to be. journalists embraced social media so tightly both for getting input for their work as well as for audience. They 'd hate to admit it but they became lazy. Partly, they made facebook (and twitter) as mainstream as it is now.
  - stevenwoo 9y ago
    I don't think it was an obvious causal relationship ala newspapers making Facebook relevant. I worked as a contractor at the Mercury News a few years ago and the vast majority of their income came from those Frys' flyers. It might as well be a subsidiary of Frys. Craigslist/Ebay/online marketplaces killed the classifieds/ads that paid for fat newspapers for a quarter when I was a kid in the 70' and 80's. Newspapers were pretty desperate for eyeballs when their income started sinking then in the early days of Facebook and now for survival.
  - dredmorbius 9y ago
    Facebook has over a billion daly actve mobile, and over two billion monthly active users. It is the biggest single media platform in the history of the planet. If you're in the audience business, it's simply a fact of life. https://zephoria.com/top-15-valuable-facebook-statistics/amp/ https://zephoria.com/top-15-valuable-facebook-statistics/amp... Media tends to winner-take-all dynamics for various reasons. Zipf's law means that at best a small number of outlets will be significant. These are characteristics of media platforms, period. Not journalists' or publishers' fault.
9y ago

Inception 9y ago

This is why you don't put all of your eggs into someone else's basket.

B1FF_PSUVM 9y ago

Old agents of disintermediation complain of new agents of disintermediation. More news at 11.

jack9 9y ago
Indeed, the usual as usual. More speech from sources = goodright unless it's someone else's different message to a wider audience. Then it's badwrong. As long as you have the money to shout it loud enough and long enough you have the same equity of audience as anyone else.

markyuckerberg 9y ago

There was a time when patio11 was going through a phase calling out Zynga as one of the shadiest companies around. I remember thinking "If Zynga is that bad, then what about Facebook?" Facebook's ability and willingness to manipulate just about everything in sight - WhatsApp ad policies, privacy policy changes, arbitrary censorship of content, providing clear misinformation to legal entities for e.g. the promise to EU that they cannot infer/merge user profiles, the absolute shitshow that is shadow profiles - in line with corporate profits is starting to make Zynga look angelic in comparison.

dang 9y ago
Substantive critique of Facebook is fine on HN. To illustrate the point, I used a moderation mechanism to rescue the OP from being penalized, which is why you see it on the front page now. That said, you can't do this with an account named "markyuckerberg". We want thoughtful conversation, not cheap shots or personal attacks. Perhaps Zuckerberg needs no protecting when it comes to these things, but HN certainly does, so I've banned this account. If you want to comment on HN, a good place to start would be with a username that doesn't violate the spirit of the site, re which please see https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html. Btw, special-purpose accounts aren't allowed here either. We're hoping for good conversation, not pre-existing agendas.
- nkurz 9y ago
  Perhaps Zuckerberg needs no protecting when it comes to these things Thanks, Dan! But regardless of one's feelings toward Facebook, I think Mark Zuckerberg should be treated with respect here just like anyone else. Not only is it good for the overall tone of the site, but there are enough "public figures" in tech that use this site that a flat "no personal attacks" (without exceptions for fame) seems like the best policy.
  - dang 9y ago
    I agree completely. But even for people who don't feel that way, there are good reasons for HN to have this rule. Breaking it degrades the community and oneself.

kelvin0 9y ago

FB is like a big dumb blind elephant. FB users are people expecting to get on the elephant for their daily commute ... and expect to get from A to B in a timely fashion. Fail.

thrusong 9y ago

I think there will be increasing scrutiny over Facebook's ability to wipe their hands while claiming "it's free speech." There's a reason the media were information gatekeepers: there's a responsibility to be accurate and unbiased. Facebook's product was manipulated and helped Donald Trump get elected by swaying public opinion. There has to be consequences- sorry, but in my opinion not every voice deserves to be equal.

dnautics 9y ago
>there's a responsibility to be accurate and unbiased In what universe is this true? Historically journalists have had long eras of questionable judgement, e.g. the yellow journalism era. Sometimes it feels like they're not really any better. Journalists have been information gatekeepers because of a structural monopoly. As this monopoly is being broken down by technology, of course the entrenched interests will clamor against the disruptors, claiming a sense of propriety that never really existed in the first place.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
malvosenior 9y ago
> Facebook's product was manipulated and helped Donald Trump get elected by swaying public opinion. That is definitely speculation and not fact.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
cobookman 9y ago
> and helped Donald Trump get elected Do you have actual proof of that. For all we know if facebook didn't exist the population might have voted even more towards Trump.
- 1337biz 9y ago

saas_sam 9y ago

Maybe the problem is trying to centrally control vast and varied resources to reach some kind of "fair" outcome. Wait, Silicon Valley techies wouldn't be in favor of anything like that, would they? Ohhh....

SonicSoul 9y ago

it's the old Facebook honeypot. So easy to share your content with users, until FB decides what will and will not be shared. http://theoatmeal.com/comics/reaching_people http://theoatmeal.com/comics/reaching_people

urbanxs 9y ago

"Experiment's"

c3534l 9y ago

> The experiment, which began 19 October and is still ongoing, involves limiting the core element of Facebook’s social network to only personal posts and paid adverts. This is the Orwellian outcry? I'm much more concerned about the idea of everyone getting their news (especially passively) from Facebook and making Facebook some sort of "social network" instead.

em3rgent0rdr 9y ago
Regardless of how people getting their news (TV, news sites, or Facebook), there is always some entity controlling what news gets seen to some extent.
PhasmaFelis 9y ago
The Orwellian part is that they rolled it out in Guatemala, where: > Soy502 is a new site in an unstable democracy where journalists and civil society groups already face an uphill battle to be heard. “We currently have a smear campaign that is targeting journalists, which is really vicious, fuelled by interest groups who are against the anti-corruption drive in our country,” she says. “We are regarded in the region as a success story on new media for the digital age. This can destroy us.”
- ComodoHacker 9y ago
  If I understand the problem correctly (I'm not a Facebook user) their articles, which were being stuffed into users' feed, now require one more click from the user to be seen. And if their audience don't do that click now, they overestimate importance of their work.

josephwegner 9y ago

This reads pretty similar to the cries that come out whenever Google updates their search algorithm. It's as if people believe there is some code big internet companies must live by, that ensures they never change. These companies live by the code of the market - they will happily make changes that make them more profitable. It does not make them evil if a small customer gets caught in the crosshairs - it just means that small customers need to be resilient to change.

cisanti 9y ago
And if you complain about low internet speed pick up a showel and start digging that fiber. I don't see a reason why cable companies need to cater your need for Netflix.
- icelancer 9y ago
  Was Facebook granted a government-sanctioned monopoly like Comcast was?
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - girvo 9y ago
    Does it matter where the monopoly came from? Honest question, I’m genuinely unsure myself
    - dingo_bat 9y ago
      Easy answer: yes it does. Think of something else like monopoly: money. Does it matter where your money came from? A drug network killing teenagers across the country or selling iphones to rich people. One makes you a criminal, the other makes you Steve Jobs.
      - alphaalpha101 9y ago
        This is the most ridiculous non-sequitur I've ever read.

dillondoyle 9y ago

I assume probably a response to decreased engagement metrics. My 'sample of one': I don't look at FB anymore, going from a daily user to maybe once a month if that. I would likely re-engage if only 'human social' posts were in my main feed. Sounds like I could still find public page posts and meme video shit if I want in the second feed. I could manually attempt to manipulate this outcome but the time and effect would pale in comparison to what FB could do fairly simply. As an advertiser, I would love this change if it does in fact bring daily users back to engaging on FB. I already pay for reach, but much of it is mobile and off FB news feed. I wonder what their metrics for ad engagement would show though: does ad engagement increase if the ad is the only non 'human social' post in view, or does the mixed content that 'blends' an ad into similar looking content produce more engagement (perhaps through engagements that users don't realize are on an ad)? And if engagement is higher because of this blending 'trick' engagement, do I actually want to pay for it or do I want to pay maybe a higher price for more 'authentic' engagement? Probably very hard to measure, which is why in my business we use polling to look beyond metrics FB reports...

frank_abagnale 9y ago
I think FB only cares about maximizing impressions (if the ad is CPM) and clicks (if the ad is CPC). Maximizing user's time by decreasing efficiency with dark patterns seems to be the name of the game.
- dillondoyle 9y ago
  Simplistically yes. I am not an engineer there so I don't know for sure, but my experience says its a bit more complicated since you can have a more complex bid that might be bidding CPM but uses LTV or CPA or some other metric (ie for us we are happy to pay $50 CPM to reach certain voter who donate to campaigns). Increasing impression load might work short term (or maybe even might work in majority of cases so my point might be moot) - until the end metric that ad buyers care about takes a hit (which in itself is a balance of quality/cost so again, it's complicated). I mean it's harder to measure for brand advertising, but we track very closely lifetime value and persuasion through surveys, so the bid method doesn't matter as much to us - and FB is probably the best IMHO at letting us bring in whatever value data we want and optimizing for that.

guuz 9y ago

FB is not obligated to listen to every media outlet in the world when it decides to change its product, but certainly it's ethical to estimate the impact a change will cause on society, how small it can be. Remember: they are not testing the new feed in established and healthy democracies, but in places where independent journalism needs to gain traction

delhanty 9y ago

Have no love for Facebook but: The Guardian would publish this wouldn't they? This is a good idea by former editor (1975-95 [1]) Peter Preston: move The Guardian back to Manchester from London and trim the wage bill in the process. [2] Perhaps then they might slow the cash burn of their Scott "Trust" endowment (£838.3m 2015) ... [3] Also, if they weren't quite so London centric they might be less surprised by "events" outside their Facebook bubbles like Brexit and Trump. I write the above as someone born in London, but now an expat (Japan) who voted against Brexit, but wasn't surprised or offended that others didn't. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/profile/peterpreston https://www.theguardian.com/profile/peterpreston [2] https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/apr/09/guardian-manchester-move-rumour-london-media https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/apr/09/guardian-manch... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Scott_Trust_Limited https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Scott_Trust_Limited

peoplewindow 9y ago
The Guardian has been pushing the line that non-Guardian news sources are 'dangerous for democracy' for a long time now. Other similar publications like the NYT have the same viewpoint. It's impressive double think: what they mean is, exposure to views they disagree with might cause people to vote against things Guardian writers like and for things Guardian writers dislike, therefore, it's important that such people are not exposed to "wrong" views. The assumption that the Guardian can't or shouldn't argue against those views is held very deep - if they took opposing views seriously and tried to engage in debate, that would "legitimise" such views or worse, they might lose the argument. I used to be a Guardian reader. I read it religiously around the time Snowden's stuff was getting published there. But I came to find it manipulative and extremist. The amount of vitriolic hate they publish in their comment is free section is very disturbing. If they go bankrupt I won't miss them.
- delhanty 9y ago
  This. The publishing that they did concerning Snowden was important for journalistic freedom. All that stuff stopped after Katherine Viner became editor in 2015. I do read it occasionally - just have uBlock Origin picker handy each time her face pops up begging for funds ...

diogenescynic 9y ago

Facebook has gotten worse and worse to use. I’m still surprised it hasn’t gone the way of MySpace. Most of my friends don’t post nearly as much. I’m sure that’s partly getting older, but it also just didn’t seem fun anymore. Reading about all the the scummy stuff Facebook has done doesn’t thrill me either.

_rpd 9y ago
> it also just didn’t seem fun anymore That's exactly why they are doing this experiment. To answer the question: will people come back if they don't have to wade through all this stuff they don't really care about?

PakG1 9y ago

In David Kirkpatrick's book The Facebook Effect, which was basically the positive counterpart book at the time to Ben Mezrich's The Accidental Billionaires: The Founding of Facebook, Kirkpatrick talks on the first few pages how Facebook's viral and collaborative social network allowed for protests and eventually political revolutions to be organized in various countries. He says that one guy was so thankful for Facebook that he named his own child with the name Facebook. If Facebook back then was lauded for enabling online communication in a way that wasn't possible before that led to political revolution for certain nations, it is ironic that these journalists are complaining about Facebook killing their click count by taking their official pages out of the mainstream feed. Taking their official pages out of the mainstream feed perhaps brings Facebook closer back to the Facebook that Kirkpatrick wrote about. This leads me to wonder whether the journalists are worried about political freedoms or really their income while raising the banner of political freedoms. The fact of the matter is that if Facebook indiscriminately removes these pages from the mainstream feed, they'll remove "good" pages, but they'll also remove "bad" pages (and let's not even get into which news media are "good" and which are "bad"). Today, we can see that Facebook is like any other technological product: it is amoral and can be used for "good" and "bad". Even though Zuckerberg now concedes that Facebook may have had a part to play in Trump's election, an idea he at first thought was nonsense, and even though he now makes overtures of wanting to help ensure elections around the world are fair (where a private American organization may or may not even be the right party to do this), Zuckerberg in fact does not have much ability to control what happens on his network. At a fundamental level, Facebook is about online social activity. Even if he manages to successfully ban politically manipulative ads (and which ads aren't?), bans fake accounts with amazing accuracy, and gets reviewed by government committees for political ads the way television and radio get reviewed, Facebook cannot survive without the lifeblood of its members engaging in online social activity. It would not be easy to ban all the "bad" people if there are a lot of "bad" people who still "deserve" their freedom of political speech. So there will likely always be an attack surface for some smart strategist to take advantage of Facebook and spread ideas maliciously and manipulatively. Pandora's Box has been opened, and it's not going to get closed again. And if people mute those they don't like, then all it does is increase individual echo chambers, which in turn then increase political polarization. If technology is amoral and can be used for both good and bad, depending on the user, we should have seen this future coming from a mile away. But we didn't, I certainly didn't. It's funny how all the lessons from 1984, Brave New World, and all the other classics have come true in so many ways. Not sure if there was a book that warned about this type of future discussed in these comment threads, but anyway. I should have seen it coming and not sure why I didn't. So we'll live in an era where information and misinformation seem to become one.

cocktailpeanuts 9y ago

This tells more about the journalists than Facebook. Facebook has always been the same. It's journalists who sold their soul so that they can make money. Furthermore, it's funny hearing this hypocrisy coming from journalists, since they are the ones who are throwing away their "journalistic integrity" to make money. It's impossible to come across a mainstream publication with unbiased point of view nowadays. They have to write polarizing articles to gain more eyeballs since otherwise no one will have enough attention to read their articles. They should realize there's a bigger opportunity here but instead all they're focused on is short therm revenue and complaining about how Facebook (who focuses obsessively on long term value) is being unfair.

smadge 9y ago
The thing about rational actors is that their options are severely limited by the market. The publishers only choice is to follow the money and play the game or perish. And of corse complain about it.
- rtpg 9y ago
  I bet there are some good opportunties for some concentrated journalism that people will find interesting enough to build a "proper business" untainted by as much advertising. The success of patreon has me believe that you could probably get enough rich people to pay (say) $50/month for a news source that feels less of a need to pander. I don't want to be too dismissive, but even though I like the coverage I get from the NY Times, I'm still financing a bunch of think pieces on the fashion industry, their cooking apps, "78 hours in X" articles, movie reviews, Bret Stephens op-eds, "Republicans place doubt on Hillary for X"-style both sides pieces, etc. I mean, sure, journalism. And its a big outfit, we don't all need to be writing about the opiod crisis. But I would like to think there's a market. Bonus points if you make this and get a rich person to help finance it. The subscription can help ease the losses whatever billionaire ends up taking. Medium is already kinda this.
  - cocktailpeanuts 9y ago
    I agree with you on everything except for the part about "Medium is already kinda this". Medium has also made the same mistake of introducing bias even though they claim to want to become a platform. A lot of people see Medium as a place where a bunch of self-important people, wannabe activists, growth hackers, social justice warriors live. You can see that by the type of posts they promote on their main page as well as their official Twitter account. It's really hard to become unbiased when the organization has a clear owner. I am hoping that the new decentralized technologies will inspire some people to come up with a completely transparent and non biased system for true journalism.

0xbear 9y ago

Where by “impact on democracy” they mean impact on their ad revenues.

_rpd 9y ago
Yes, but also impact on their ability to generate and wield political power. Journalism is practically non-profit these days, but there'll never be a shortage of journalists looking to marshal the Fourth Estate.
- 0xbear 9y ago
  That, too. Everyone is so eager to offer their “valuable” opinion and omit the parts of the story that don’t conform to that opinion.

interfixus 9y ago

My visits to Zuckerberg-land are few and getting fewer. Mainly to pick up the occasional personal message and redirect it to a more civilized channel. And when I visit, I am heavily insulated by various sorts of filters - I never see ads or silly recommendations. So clearly, I'm in a bubble, and my ignorance is self-wrought, but honestly, I never get it when there's talk about people reading news - fake or otherwise - on Facebook. How do you even do that? Why would anyone? What am I missing? If I ever did see a news item there, my first instinct would be distrust, my first potential reaction would be seeking out some external source, and if none could be found, absolute dismissal. Two billion users do realise FB is nothing but a cheap, tacky marketing ploy, yes? They do, don't they? Please!

remarkEon 9y ago
Narrator: they do not.
- interfixus 9y ago
  And apparently, neither do several downvoters here.

dingo_bat 9y ago

Ah, poor "journalists"! But on point, I'd pay a small fee to make my FB feed free of posts by any professional news outlet.

nofilter 9y ago

I don't get it, in the olden days where forums were popular everyone knew that the final say of the content in that forum was of the administrators. Now, however, we join a website we do not own, run by people we do not know, and expect them to what, do as we say? Yeah, doesn't work like that. I'm not supporting what Facebook does, but I'm not against it either. Like it, use it, don't like it, don't use it.

guuz 9y ago
The forums were/are usually catering to niches. Facebook is a behemoth. To many people, the internet is basically it.

known 9y ago

"Media does not spread FREE opinion; It GENERATES opinion" --Oswald,1918 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_of_the_West https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_of_the_West