I was wondering when the first article/news about Facebook would be posted here following the WSJ "leak" of the research, and now the whistleblower. I do agree with his big point that selling...
I was wondering when the first article/news about Facebook would be posted here following the WSJ "leak" of the research, and now the whistleblower.
I do agree with his big point that selling people what they really want to see is what Facebook's product is -- or at least the feed is. I stopped looking at the feed more than a decade ago when I realized I was just making myself depressed reading it. Since then I've only been using Facebook for messenger and events and stuff, which as far as I can tell doesn't really have any crossover to the whole algorithmically giving you things to see business. I still use Instagram from time to time, but mine is filled with cool boring stuff like photographers and painters and just people I know in real life, I've apparently managed to keep it from showing me stuff that will make me feel worse about myself. I used Twitter (a site that is entirely just a feed with no other purpose) until last year when I realized I hated it and hated reading it and it was making me angry, so I just stopped and moved on with my life.
Anyway yeah, back to the article, he's right about what it's doing -- it learns your interests and desires, and then shows you things relevant to those. It determines what will spark the excitement centres of your brain and knows just the thing to show you to make you feel alive and come back for more. You hate Obama? Here's an article about how he sucks and is "evil" or whatever. You don't like Republicans? Here's the latest takedown by your favourite leftist (a political category I consider myself a part of) about why the latest thing they did is so outrageous and you won't believe it, and here's where you can subscribe to my newsletter for more. You're in to makeup? Here's all the best makeup artists who are better than you and look better than you and there's always more of them ready for you to discover.
I wish the editorial had some kind of suggestion about what should be done. He's right, but what then? It's the part that I feel lacking in recent discourse about the Facebook (and other social media). What regulation (the common sentiment it seems to be, and I guess the whole reason that whistleblower with the new media career appeared in front of congress) should be done to tackle this? How do you draw the lines (or gradient) between when what Facebook (et al) is doing has gone too far and should be stopped, and when it's only an acceptable amount of giving you what you want to see? How do we pinpoint where precisely it's a "harmful" thing and not just one of those regular things we've come to accept, like all the advertising out there in the world, the entire fashion industry, the entire marketing industry, cable TV, radio, YouTube, Reddit, the local church (or other similar community), all PR, every political campaign, search engines, the nature of celebrity, etc.
I'm not a fan of Facebook (I could even say I was an early hater), nor the other social networks/online media (that can for now be happy there's Facebook to take the heat), and I certainly think a lot of people should Just Log Off. The recent media blitz against Facebook has left me feeling wanting for more ideas on paths forward though, and analyzing the line between something that is causing harm and us being our own enemies at times.
The author is a journalist who runs a successful online media business. I don’t know why he’d have any useful input on what the optimal regulation would be. His expertise would be on media...
The author is a journalist who runs a successful online media business. I don’t know why he’d have any useful input on what the optimal regulation would be. His expertise would be on media business models and journalism.
He’s written previously about how he specifically created TPM’s business model to not be reliant on Facebook for traffic specifically because he feared revolving around Facebook and Twitter clicks would turn his business into one that revolves around attracting “traffic” rather than cultivating an audience/subscription base.
Editorial that succinctly states exactly what the issue with Facebook is and why the minor "nibbling around the edges" of regulation it tries to propose for itself are destined to fail.
Editorial that succinctly states exactly what the issue with Facebook is and why the minor "nibbling around the edges" of regulation it tries to propose for itself are destined to fail.
I want to stop and focus on the title of the article for a minute. Why is he singling out teenage girls? Why is he drawing a comparison? In the text of the article he presents a hypothetical of an...
I want to stop and focus on the title of the article for a minute. Why is he singling out teenage girls? Why is he drawing a comparison? In the text of the article he presents a hypothetical of an insecure teenage girl and how they might turn to the internet for information. He then uses this to explain how Facebook operates... so why is Facebook "teen girls"? If anything he's actually painting the user as a teen girl, Facebook is merely where they are going for information. Why even have that in the title at all? If the point of the article is about how Facebook preys on insecurity and is incentivized to keep you on the platform and all the negatives it entails, why not state it like that?
The opening sentence refers to the context that the author is writing the article in, which involves teen girls especially being an effected demographic. Haven't been paying attention to the story...
Why is he singling out teenage girls?
The opening sentence refers to the context that the author is writing the article in, which involves teen girls especially being an effected demographic. Haven't been paying attention to the story so I may be missing something.
Okay thank you this provides some context... but also, this is about teens, why is he singling out the girls among them? Does he think boys are immune to insecurities or the dangers of a platform...
Okay thank you this provides some context... but also, this is about teens, why is he singling out the girls among them? Does he think boys are immune to insecurities or the dangers of a platform which incentivizes clicks and engagement over everything else?
If you Google story-related search terms you'll find that pretty much everyone is writing about the harm to teenage girls-- it isn't anything author-specific. AFAIK, teen girls are singled out...
If you Google story-related search terms you'll find that pretty much everyone is writing about the harm to teenage girls-- it isn't anything author-specific.
AFAIK, teen girls are singled out because:
Wall Street Journal published several stories earlier this month about how Facebook knew Instagram caused some teen girls in particular to feel badly about their self-image
I mean, that doesn't surprise me, and gets at the heart of the issue here. Why are only teen girls insecure and boys can't be? Why does self-image not matter for boys but does for girls? Why are...
I mean, that doesn't surprise me, and gets at the heart of the issue here. Why are only teen girls insecure and boys can't be? Why does self-image not matter for boys but does for girls? Why are teen girls worthy of protection and teen boys not?
Your question made me wonder whether we had access to the data regarding boys (I wasn't sure what all has been released to the public). In searching around, it looks like Facebook actually...
Your question made me wonder whether we had access to the data regarding boys (I wasn't sure what all has been released to the public). In searching around, it looks like Facebook actually published some of the data in response to the news.
This PDF has gender disaggregated data about body image as it applies to boys and girls (page 14). Meanwhile this PDF has several slides about mental health broken up by gender.
Also worth noting: neither one includes nonbinary individuals as a category, unfortunately.
To answer more generally and get to spread a quote I liked from an interview on deterring tax evasion: The researcher found that a top-500 offender list was a greater deterrent than publishing...
To answer more generally and get to spread a quote I liked from an interview on deterring tax evasion:
"It's said sunlight is the best disinfectant, but we found a spotlight worked even better."
The researcher found that a top-500 offender list was a greater deterrent than publishing everyone. Maybe related is that people donate less money to charities the more suffering children are shown in their solicitation.
Teen girls were more effected by Instagram use and they make a convenient narrative vehicle, so the stories use that perspective. Having some salient perspective may be better than covering everything the way academics should.
There's a lot that you can dig into for why girls/children/X has some special narrative appeal, I'm sure, but I don't understand that choice as implying that boys don't have self-image issues or that they're not worth protecting.
I understand what you're getting at but I would implore you to think of how this kind of conversation occurring at the level and repetition that it's occuring at does to the shared values and...
I understand what you're getting at but I would implore you to think of how this kind of conversation occurring at the level and repetition that it's occuring at does to the shared values and implications on a society level.
By focusing the narrative in this manner we're causing lots of people to internalize specific values for girls and a different set of values for boys. You may be above that implication but what of a young child who is still learning about the world? What of an insecure boy who has never seen himself reflected in media? What of people who wish to reinforce their belief that only girls can have self image issues?
I was wondering when the first article/news about Facebook would be posted here following the WSJ "leak" of the research, and now the whistleblower.
I do agree with his big point that selling people what they really want to see is what Facebook's product is -- or at least the feed is. I stopped looking at the feed more than a decade ago when I realized I was just making myself depressed reading it. Since then I've only been using Facebook for messenger and events and stuff, which as far as I can tell doesn't really have any crossover to the whole algorithmically giving you things to see business. I still use Instagram from time to time, but mine is filled with cool boring stuff like photographers and painters and just people I know in real life, I've apparently managed to keep it from showing me stuff that will make me feel worse about myself. I used Twitter (a site that is entirely just a feed with no other purpose) until last year when I realized I hated it and hated reading it and it was making me angry, so I just stopped and moved on with my life.
Anyway yeah, back to the article, he's right about what it's doing -- it learns your interests and desires, and then shows you things relevant to those. It determines what will spark the excitement centres of your brain and knows just the thing to show you to make you feel alive and come back for more. You hate Obama? Here's an article about how he sucks and is "evil" or whatever. You don't like Republicans? Here's the latest takedown by your favourite leftist (a political category I consider myself a part of) about why the latest thing they did is so outrageous and you won't believe it, and here's where you can subscribe to my newsletter for more. You're in to makeup? Here's all the best makeup artists who are better than you and look better than you and there's always more of them ready for you to discover.
I wish the editorial had some kind of suggestion about what should be done. He's right, but what then? It's the part that I feel lacking in recent discourse about the Facebook (and other social media). What regulation (the common sentiment it seems to be, and I guess the whole reason that whistleblower with the new media career appeared in front of congress) should be done to tackle this? How do you draw the lines (or gradient) between when what Facebook (et al) is doing has gone too far and should be stopped, and when it's only an acceptable amount of giving you what you want to see? How do we pinpoint where precisely it's a "harmful" thing and not just one of those regular things we've come to accept, like all the advertising out there in the world, the entire fashion industry, the entire marketing industry, cable TV, radio, YouTube, Reddit, the local church (or other similar community), all PR, every political campaign, search engines, the nature of celebrity, etc.
I'm not a fan of Facebook (I could even say I was an early hater), nor the other social networks/online media (that can for now be happy there's Facebook to take the heat), and I certainly think a lot of people should Just Log Off. The recent media blitz against Facebook has left me feeling wanting for more ideas on paths forward though, and analyzing the line between something that is causing harm and us being our own enemies at times.
The author is a journalist who runs a successful online media business. I don’t know why he’d have any useful input on what the optimal regulation would be. His expertise would be on media business models and journalism.
He’s written previously about how he specifically created TPM’s business model to not be reliant on Facebook for traffic specifically because he feared revolving around Facebook and Twitter clicks would turn his business into one that revolves around attracting “traffic” rather than cultivating an audience/subscription base.
Editorial that succinctly states exactly what the issue with Facebook is and why the minor "nibbling around the edges" of regulation it tries to propose for itself are destined to fail.
I want to stop and focus on the title of the article for a minute. Why is he singling out teenage girls? Why is he drawing a comparison? In the text of the article he presents a hypothetical of an insecure teenage girl and how they might turn to the internet for information. He then uses this to explain how Facebook operates... so why is Facebook "teen girls"? If anything he's actually painting the user as a teen girl, Facebook is merely where they are going for information. Why even have that in the title at all? If the point of the article is about how Facebook preys on insecurity and is incentivized to keep you on the platform and all the negatives it entails, why not state it like that?
The opening sentence refers to the context that the author is writing the article in, which involves teen girls especially being an effected demographic. Haven't been paying attention to the story so I may be missing something.
Okay thank you this provides some context... but also, this is about teens, why is he singling out the girls among them? Does he think boys are immune to insecurities or the dangers of a platform which incentivizes clicks and engagement over everything else?
It’s a key item in the whistleblower’s complaint derived from Facebook’s internal research of their own platform:
If you Google story-related search terms you'll find that pretty much everyone is writing about the harm to teenage girls-- it isn't anything author-specific.
AFAIK, teen girls are singled out because:
I mean, that doesn't surprise me, and gets at the heart of the issue here. Why are only teen girls insecure and boys can't be? Why does self-image not matter for boys but does for girls? Why are teen girls worthy of protection and teen boys not?
Your question made me wonder whether we had access to the data regarding boys (I wasn't sure what all has been released to the public). In searching around, it looks like Facebook actually published some of the data in response to the news.
This PDF has gender disaggregated data about body image as it applies to boys and girls (page 14). Meanwhile this PDF has several slides about mental health broken up by gender.
Also worth noting: neither one includes nonbinary individuals as a category, unfortunately.
To answer more generally and get to spread a quote I liked from an interview on deterring tax evasion:
The researcher found that a top-500 offender list was a greater deterrent than publishing everyone. Maybe related is that people donate less money to charities the more suffering children are shown in their solicitation.
Teen girls were more effected by Instagram use and they make a convenient narrative vehicle, so the stories use that perspective. Having some salient perspective may be better than covering everything the way academics should.
There's a lot that you can dig into for why girls/children/X has some special narrative appeal, I'm sure, but I don't understand that choice as implying that boys don't have self-image issues or that they're not worth protecting.
I understand what you're getting at but I would implore you to think of how this kind of conversation occurring at the level and repetition that it's occuring at does to the shared values and implications on a society level.
By focusing the narrative in this manner we're causing lots of people to internalize specific values for girls and a different set of values for boys. You may be above that implication but what of a young child who is still learning about the world? What of an insecure boy who has never seen himself reflected in media? What of people who wish to reinforce their belief that only girls can have self image issues?