Back in February, Facebook has announced a little experiment. It can reduce the amount of politics that is displayed on a group of users in a few countries, including the US, and then ask them about what has happened. “Our goal is to protect people’s ability to find and interact with politics on Facebook, and to honor the interests of everyone at the top of the News Feed,” Aastha Gupta, marketing director, explained in a blog post.
Tuesday morning, the company provided a plan. The results of this study are available, and it shows that users appreciate seeing the political elements more often in their diets. Now Facebook wants to repeat the test in many countries, and laughs at “another expansion in the coming months.” Reducing food costs is understandable for a company that is always in hot water because of its politics. The move, after all, was first announced a month after Donald Trump’s inauguration in the Capitol, part of which some people, including elected officials, wanted to sue Facebook. The change could have serious implications for political parties and media organizations that are accustomed to relying on Facebook for distribution.
The most important part of Facebook advertising, however, is not politics at all.
The basics of any AI-supported diet — think Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, TikTok, YouTube — is that you don’t have to tell them what you want to see. By simply seeing your preferences, sharing, commenting, or simply delaying, algorithms learn the type of content that interests you and keeps it on the platform. Then it shows you a lot of things like that.
In other words, the design provides an opportunity for TV companies and apologists to be able to defend themselves against criticism: If certain things are growing on the platform, that’s why consumers prefer. If you have a problem with this, your problem probably has users.
And yet, at the same time, optimizing participation is at the heart of many social media criticisms. Algorithms that focus on participation can force users to do things that can be fun but useless. It can give them junk food which is a lot of fun because they are so dangerous. And it can encourage a lot of things that are false or harmful, because the system first decides what can lead to a relationship, not what should be considered. A list of problems associated with the initial production of collaborations helps explain why Mark Zuckerberg, Jack Dorsey, or Sundar Photosi he would agree At a March convention that the towers under his control were built that way. Zuckerberg emphasized that “good relationships” are the ultimate goal of Facebook. “Dating,” he said, “is a sign that if we give a price, then people will use it more.”
Elsewhere, however, Zuckerberg has admitted that things will not be easy. In 2018 post, explaining why Facebook pushes “boundaries” that try to push the end of the rules on a platform without violating them, he wrote, “it doesn’t matter where we draw the lines of what is allowed, since the ones that are close to the line, people do almost – even if they tell us later that they don’t like what is .
Source link
