Mastodon Feed: Post

fromjason ("Jason") wrote:

Tagging one of the most powerful people at #Meta to make them aware of a conversation about the company's unethical practices sure feels like an intimidation tactic. If it is, then hey, it's working! I'm sufficiently intimidated. If it's not, then the inventor of the hashtag should probably know better?

We learned about Meta's intentional amplification of contentious content because of a whistleblower.

https://www.theverge.com/2021/10/3/22707860/facebook-whistleblower-leaked-documents-files-regulation

Attachments:

• Screen shot of comments on Threads: jasondotgov: All the transphobic, race-baity, and overall contentious posts on all our feeds seems more like a feature than a bug. I'd really be suspicious if Meta was known to manipulate our moods and behaviors with algorithmic amplification. chris: Could be. I wouldn't put it past them either, but I'm still more inclined to believe that blackbox algorithms work on mysterious ways to put content in front of us that causes is to engage, rather than Meta choosing rage-inducing content just to spike short term engagement. IIRC @mosseri has said that such an approach would not lead to sustained growth, and that showing content that fits people's interest would keep them around longer (though a dearth of content may ultimately inhibit that).