4 ms·

Clickbait. Title makes it sound like they pay them directly to promote the platform, but they get paid through facebook content monetisation program

by efilife 1mo ago

chinathrow 1mo ago
Not Clickbait. If you provide both: a) a service to earn money from content b) an algo promoting those videos then yes, IMHO they pay them directly for the content produced.
- pizza234 1mo ago
  There is a distinction between: - Meta is commissioning or sponsoring rage-bait - Controversial creators are earning money through Facebook's content monetization program The title is ambiguous (at first, I thought it was the first case), and that's where the clickbait lies. No doubt that also the second case is a serious problem, but that's orthogonal to the ambiguity of the title.
  - hhjinks 1mo ago
    The distinction disappears when Facebook incentivizes the creation of the rage-bait content by prioritizing it in their algorithm. They can, at any moment, de-rank rage-bait, but they don't. That clearly signals "make rage-bait for our platform and we'll pay you." Contrast it with something like Elsagate. Google actioned the offending creators and attempted to deprioritize the kind of content that caused the controversy. Facebook would do the same if they didn't condone rage-bait.
    - modo_mario 1mo ago
      >They can, at any moment, de-rank rage-bait, but they don't. That clearly signals "make rage-bait for our platform and we'll pay you." They don't because they don't select for it. They disporotionally push engagement but as far as I know don't have some indians or AI working tirelessly analysing countless videos to categorise them and rank them according to how ragebaity or controversial they are. Those things just rise to the top out of their effort to drive engagement and screentime. Any alternative that does the same will end up with similar result.
      - hhjinks 1mo ago
        I find it hard to believe that Facebook's feed is "dumb" and only promotes what's engaging the most users. They serve you content that they think you will find engaging, and there has to be some automatic categorization as a result. And regardless, even if they don't select for rage-bait, they still refuse to take action against accounts that repeatedly post it, making your interjection largely pointless.
        modo_mario 1mo ago
        It's not dumb and promotes what's engaging for users individually algoritmically without categorising. That's the not dumb part about it. >They serve you content that they think you will find engaging, and there has to be some automatic categorization as a result. And this can be completely smart or dumb depending on how you look at it. From my perspective it's a smart algorithm still. If you like or comment on far right or far left ragebait or just ragebait in general then it can serve you ouput from accounts who attract engagement from others who also engage witht hat video. Aka similarly minded people get similarly minded content semi organically as a result of optimising for engagement. It can do so without genuenly knowing that the video is of category xyz and promoting that specific category but automatically it detects that people who engage with video y are also more likely to engage with video z. The ideological and engagement type bubbles create themselves as a result. >even if they don't select for rage-bait, they still refuse to take action against accounts that repeatedly post it, making your interjection largely pointless. The definition of ragebait is vague. Your supressing ragebait is another person's ragebait or supressing of desimination of societal issues. It can be a video of violent crime or of political corruption. Of war or religious extremism. It can be sharing statistics, supporting misogynistic or xyzfobic talkingpoints or exposing them, etc In a society facing economic decline, corruption or cultural upheaval or what have you you will be stepping on toes whichever way you go. I'd say it's better to either outright ban this kind of social media which will be deeply unpopular or to focus wholely on tackling the divisive issues that lead people to be attracted to some of the dominant topics.
  - aragilar 1mo ago
    "an invitation-only programme that lets you earn money from the performance of your eligible public reels, photos, stories and text posts." implies this is only available to a subset of people?
myaccountonhn 1mo ago
So they do directly pay them?

Clickbait. Title makes it sound like they pay them directly to promote the platform, but they get paid through facebook content monetisation program

by efilife 1mo ago

Clickbait. Title makes it sound like they pay them directly to promote the platform, but they get paid through facebook content monetisation program

chinathrow 1mo ago

Not Clickbait. If you provide both: a) a service to earn money from content b) an algo promoting those videos then yes, IMHO they pay them directly for the content produced.

pizza234 1mo ago
There is a distinction between: - Meta is commissioning or sponsoring rage-bait - Controversial creators are earning money through Facebook's content monetization program The title is ambiguous (at first, I thought it was the first case), and that's where the clickbait lies. No doubt that also the second case is a serious problem, but that's orthogonal to the ambiguity of the title.
- hhjinks 1mo ago
  The distinction disappears when Facebook incentivizes the creation of the rage-bait content by prioritizing it in their algorithm. They can, at any moment, de-rank rage-bait, but they don't. That clearly signals "make rage-bait for our platform and we'll pay you." Contrast it with something like Elsagate. Google actioned the offending creators and attempted to deprioritize the kind of content that caused the controversy. Facebook would do the same if they didn't condone rage-bait.
  - modo_mario 1mo ago
    >They can, at any moment, de-rank rage-bait, but they don't. That clearly signals "make rage-bait for our platform and we'll pay you." They don't because they don't select for it. They disporotionally push engagement but as far as I know don't have some indians or AI working tirelessly analysing countless videos to categorise them and rank them according to how ragebaity or controversial they are. Those things just rise to the top out of their effort to drive engagement and screentime. Any alternative that does the same will end up with similar result.
    - hhjinks 1mo ago
      I find it hard to believe that Facebook's feed is "dumb" and only promotes what's engaging the most users. They serve you content that they think you will find engaging, and there has to be some automatic categorization as a result. And regardless, even if they don't select for rage-bait, they still refuse to take action against accounts that repeatedly post it, making your interjection largely pointless.
      - modo_mario 1mo ago
        It's not dumb and promotes what's engaging for users individually algoritmically without categorising. That's the not dumb part about it. >They serve you content that they think you will find engaging, and there has to be some automatic categorization as a result. And this can be completely smart or dumb depending on how you look at it. From my perspective it's a smart algorithm still. If you like or comment on far right or far left ragebait or just ragebait in general then it can serve you ouput from accounts who attract engagement from others who also engage witht hat video. Aka similarly minded people get similarly minded content semi organically as a result of optimising for engagement. It can do so without genuenly knowing that the video is of category xyz and promoting that specific category but automatically it detects that people who engage with video y are also more likely to engage with video z. The ideological and engagement type bubbles create themselves as a result. >even if they don't select for rage-bait, they still refuse to take action against accounts that repeatedly post it, making your interjection largely pointless. The definition of ragebait is vague. Your supressing ragebait is another person's ragebait or supressing of desimination of societal issues. It can be a video of violent crime or of political corruption. Of war or religious extremism. It can be sharing statistics, supporting misogynistic or xyzfobic talkingpoints or exposing them, etc In a society facing economic decline, corruption or cultural upheaval or what have you you will be stepping on toes whichever way you go. I'd say it's better to either outright ban this kind of social media which will be deeply unpopular or to focus wholely on tackling the divisive issues that lead people to be attracted to some of the dominant topics.
- aragilar 1mo ago
  "an invitation-only programme that lets you earn money from the performance of your eligible public reels, photos, stories and text posts." implies this is only available to a subset of people?

myaccountonhn 1mo ago

So they do directly pay them?