Sometimes I wonder that when we shower criticism on Facebook about privacy concerns, we're missing the forest for the trees. The bigger issue I see is the sheer amount of eyeballs trained exclusively to Facebook's content.<p>What does it mean for society when Facebook can demote a challenging but important article (say, of war reporting) in your newsfeed so it can promote your friend's Wedding photos, because an algorithm says that challenging articles cause people to leave FB, reducing page views and ad revenue?
Excerpt from <a href="http://www.dagsavisen.no/verden/the-girl-in-the-picture-saddened-by-facebook-s-focus-on-nudity-1.773232" rel="nofollow">http://www.dagsavisen.no/verden/the-girl-in-the-picture-sadd...</a><p>“Kim is saddened by those who would focus on the nudity in the historic picture rather than the powerful message it conveys”, writes spokesperson Anne Bayin to Dagsavisen.<p>Kim Phuc says that it has been painful to see the picture, but that it represents an important moment in history.<p>“She fully supports the documentary image taken by Nick Ut as a moment of truth that captures the horror of war and its effects on innocent victims”, writes the Kim Phuc Foundation in a statement.
> "Facebook is for the pleasure and benefit of the whole world, myself included, on a number of levels."<p>Wrong. Facebook is for making money. If providing users with pleasure or benefits makes them money, then that's lucky for the users.<p>> "Facebook has become a world-leading platform for spreading information, for debate and for social contact between persons. You have gained this position because you deserve it."<p>Also wrong. The second sentence, I mean.<p>I agree with the intent here. I agree with the outrage at Facebook. The author of this piece, too, seems to understand the futility of this open letter, and I do think it's a good thing that he's making the statement regardless. I just think that maybe he's being too generous to Mark and Facebook.
I'm posting mostly just to make the chorus louder. This was a well-thought out, articulate criticism of Facebook's policy.<p>It's relevant to free-speech, art, censorship, the means of production, etc., and the fact that Facebook plays a role underscores their power, and why this matters.<p>It a slippery slope when policy fails to achieve an appropriate, nuanced perspective.
I wonder what the solution to this is. From what I know about reviewing reports about content, it's basically a case of someone reporting the post, then the report being farmed to reviewers, then the reviewers can check the post and I optionally the context to either kill the post or leave it alone.<p>That means your post is one of hundreds this person sees that day and their guidance is likely "no genitalia, no nipples, and definitely never any naked children". So they act accordingly.<p>So what's the ideal path from here? Do you educate them about art? What's the line after that? Is this photo ok? What about the famous album cover? What about private party pictures? Etc. Can we even describe a reasonable line? Do we expect them to reverse image search every single photo for context? (Not many people could recognise that photo on its own) How many more people would be needed for clarification? What's the incentive to get them?
Facebook - context oblivious censorship on the other hand - reality-bubble forming curator algorithms on the other. Somehow the term "negative feedback loop" comes to mind every time Facebooks mechanisms to filter and market content is brought forth.<p>I don't think internet search engines should try to be helpful. Guessing what the recipient would like to see removes chance for serendipity and creates and information bubble with a radius given by the algorithms parameters... and then, for what is brought out, they remove the too-saucy bits. This is worse than censorship.
Relevant: <a href="http://www.theonion.com/article/horrible-facebook-algorithm-accident-results-expos-53841" rel="nofollow">http://www.theonion.com/article/horrible-facebook-algorithm-...</a><p>For those who don't understand why this is relevant: the important point is that Facebook was never, is not, and will never be meant for dispersing information and fostering meaningful discourse. Its only raison d'être is entertainment and generating revenue for its shareholders, so it's rather pointless to try to fight their arbitrary rules.<p>If you are trying to bring up meaningful discourse on Facebook, you're not getting the right audience, because Facebook is all about reinforcement of the user's existing believes and world views.<p>I have friends and ex-colleagues who hold different political views than me. I virtually never see their posts on Facebook, because algorithm and machine learning. And I'm aware of that fact when I use Facebook.<p>Afterposten is in the media business, they understand the unwritten rules. Call me a cynic, but I feel that the only point of their open letter is to sound righteous and generate publicity.
I wonder how monopolized publishing is these days. If you want to get the message out about something, how much are you at the mercy of a few distribution channels and how much do we have an open ecosystem that gives everybody equal rights? I am honestly not sure.<p>How important is it to be on Facebook? On Twitter? On Reddit? On HN? Indexed by Google? Have connections to the Huffington Post?<p>If you have something interesting to say, can those forces stop you? Or will it spread because it is interesting?<p>If you make great art, will it become popular just because it is great? Or does it depend on your marketing skills?<p>Could we have technology that makes interesting, helpful content spread no matter what?<p>Do we have to invent some kind of "internet voting" system to accomplish this? Can blockchain technology help with this?
A VIP reason to have popular alternatives to services like those provided by the likes of Facebook, Google, Microsoft and Twitter that are not controlled by monster corporations.
> <i>Facebook is for the pleasure and benefit of the whole world</i><p>Wait, what? Facebook is more like tobacco: addictive, very bad for you, and very profitable.
While I get this is not the main point this part stuck out for me<p>> Furthermore, Facebook should distinguish between editors and other Facebook-users<p>Sigh ... so he's asking to be marked as one of the "elite" by FB while us plebs should be treated lessor?
> If you take the liberty to challenge Facebook’s rules, you will be met – as we have seen – with censorship.<p>You are in Marks living room. He has asked you not to bring certain kinds of photos to his place. You did anyway so he took the photo from you. You brought another copy the next time. Now he is getting angry with you.<p>Maybe you should meet at your place in the future? Or maybe you shouldn't be friends with Mark at all.
> Facebook is for the pleasure and benefit of the whole world<p>I wish that were true, but Facebook is actually for selling the world's eyeballs to advertisers.
> But, dear Mark, you are the world’s most powerful editor.<p>If we want to treat Mark as the editor to Facebook, then he wants to tailor its content to the type of audience he wants to attract and business he is in.<p>Would Teen People or Vogue print a picture of napalmed children on its cover?
I suggest they do a bait and switch make the headline be about a lipstick or a boy band then hit the reader with the horrors of bombing 12 year old little girls with Napalm.
Soon, people will start to realize that for actual information, news, and debate, you have to venture outside of Facebook, just like you have to venture outside of TV for those things currently in the US (not a single actual news program available on broadcast or cable but plenty of "News" entertainment programs). Otherwise you're just processing mindless drivel that you already agree with and that you already know. Which is exactly the state of being Zuckerberg and other people trying to push garbage products onto people prefer. Until then, our society will probably just keep pretending that Facebook is something other than brain junk food because most people don't want to admit to themselves that they are being controlled and manipulated, and most people simply just don't give a fuck about news, history, historical photos, or anything beyond petty celebrity gossip or other such nonsense (that's why those things are pulled from timelines).
Between this and stuff like youtube's ideas of "advertiser-friendliness" [0][1] the major websites are shaping up (down?) to be so. freaking. spineless.<p>[0] <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bn3-Q1lY7fU" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bn3-Q1lY7fU</a>
[1] <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDwdBc0-uq8" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDwdBc0-uq8</a>