Today’s piece is excellent in many ways and more folks need this information!
When I try to share it ( it’s the best way I know to get folks to subscribe or donate) it posts in a format that guarantees no one will look at it 😞. Can you find a way to share the content as it appears in the inbox, opposed to “referral “ w/blank box and a link to subscribe...
What a great article. Social media companies are responsible for so much that is wrong in the world, we need many more folks writing articles just like this one. This line really jumped out at me, it is spot on: "It's important to note here that Facebook's algorithm is not reflecting reality — it's creating a reality that doesn't exist anywhere else." That alternative reality is making the social media companies absurdly rich and making the world a much worse place. Thanks again for this piece.
That's the truth that leaped out at me, too. How can consumers / users pressure FB to make needed changes? For ex, they could set a different ranking for legit news organizations -- those that follow journalistic standards, and rank opinion pieces lower than actual news, etc.
I find it ironic that at the same time that Facebook algorithms and moderators "turn a blind eye" to the egregious lies and misinformation of the right-wing media they amplify, they apply strict and strange criteria to health information sites like mine (thedoctorweighsin.com).
I used to spend a fair amount for an organization my size on "boosting" my stories on Facebook. Not infrequently, I would be told I couldn't boost a story because it violated their guidelines. For example, they rejected a story with a stock photo of a baby getting a childhood vaccination because the picture was "too violent."
I took a hiatus from spending on FB ads but recently restarted in an effort to buffer my site from the wild swings in organic search traffic due to Google's frequent and damaging changes in their search algorithm.
Lo and behold, two or three ads in I get one rejected. It was a story (written by a respected board-certified dermatologist) about skin tags (a benign condition that affects about half of the population). It explained why some people should be cautious before attempting to remove skin tags themselves. The accompanying featured photo was the neck of a person that had numerous skin tags (wild, right, I used a photo of skin tags to illustrate a story about skin tags). The boost was rejected because it violated guidelines. Photos like these they said could make people feel bad about themselves.
So, let's see, favoring right-wing sites with rhetoric that threatens our democracy = OK.
Photos about a medical condition that show that medical condition = too damaging to be promoted beyond my regular readers.
Hey Judd what about the political profile of the Facebook userbase? If the users skew more conservative, couldn’t that contribute to the skew in content reach/popularity?
Great reporting but we already knew this. Joel Kaplan is in bed with Ben Shapiro and the Daily Wire. They're buddies so he illegally boosts his pages. When they police themselves, of course nothing will change. I've been banned by twitter permanently for saying that Tomi Lauren "sounded like a bimbo" but Donald Trump and far-right 'news' publications can pump out lies and insight and insurrection at the capital but they might be allowed back on the platform because they generate views and make money. Twitter and Facebook do not care about anything on their platforms. They simply care about their bottom line.
Judd, this is an issue that I am personally involved in trying to help solve at my job. This MIT Technology Review article shows "one" chart that not only shows the problem but the solution. The claim in the article, that Facebook can’t tamp down on dis/mis-information because the AIs are too easily fooled by rapidly evolving forms, is --extremely-- disingenuous. A very simple algorithm could be derived from the graph they provided, that would allow them to do so. It doesn’t have to use an AI, just throttle anything with a hockey-stick-looking engagement rate, at least until the content can be reviewed. Even better, always do it. The thing is they won't, because it will impact their bottom line. This is exactly the sort of case that calls for government regulation - when companies get too large, have too much power, and their interests are against the public good. They have to be legally required to change their behavior.
I dropped FB from my life over a decade ago. I have never regretted the decision. I don’t need an algorithm to tell me what to read. I have friends all over the country (world, even), and I have no trouble keeping in touch with them. I am happy paying WP and NYT to get through their pay walls. I use DuckDuckGo for search and pay $50/year for an email account that is NOT hosted by Google. Try it; you’ll like it.
That's all good. Our problem isn't you. It's the gazillions of FB users who're getting a daily dose of the Daily Wire, poisoning our politics in the process.
I still have an account and still use it daily. But I never use the feed and only see it on those rare occasions I share an article from the NYT. At all other times, my FB page is on my wall or one of my friends' walls.
Thank you, Judd, for your investigative journalism and shining a light on issues that companies and billionaires would rather stay hidden from the general public!
Bad or good, FB is the mouth piece of the world. Just think the quest for Ad Money has almost brought America to it's knees. Give it time. The I don't read my Ads is impossible as they are allover the place. I have a news feed full of cat stories and crockpot recipes. Never join a group is my advice. Those Trumpers joined Daily Wire and that's all they see. So throw in some survival gear ads, Flags, red hats and the list goes on.
Yet.
I know Alexa and "Gladys" (My Google Assistant) and Siri listen, and they also follow me around Google. Best case ever is my son searching for a Hokie stone for his house 3 hours away. He talked about it and searched for it. Used two devices his computer and iPhone.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, 2 days later Mom(me) who has ordered VA Tech stuff through a FB Ad gets an AD on FB for Hokie Stone. It is posted on my news feed where I happily post pics of kids, food, my animals and block Trump followers on my account. I ❤️ my friends stories and pics, etc. The thing FB does best is keep me connected to family and friends. Three days later talking to him in person he bemoans he can't find a Hokie Stone. I said. "I can, I got an ad from FB two days ago. So Searched my feed, it popped up under the Cathy stuff on my wall in a search. The rest is history. He owns a Hokie Stone.
My point is. Social Media is Big Brother. I sent my kids snack boxes on Amazon back in November via the site/I get snack Ads on FB.
Am I going to drop FB as a user? Likely not. I enjoy keeping up with my far and wide FB friends and family. I watch live feed church services because I hate zoom. I listen to music and follow heart wrenching videos on the Dodo...
I can tell you that that pay wall on the NYT and WP is why they lose out and the Daily Wire gets so many hits because they rely on Ad revenue instead.
So no oversight board is ever going to stop those Ad sales. Deny and hate on FB all you want it is at this point uncontrollable. Most people are not going to drop it completely from their lives.
Ol Zuck laughs his way through his glad handing at the Federalist Society Dinner and wears his Caesar haircut like the Empire ruler he is.
Excellent reporting. If we could only get you an Ad on the FB Empire...
You have fabulous content-Thankyou.
Today’s piece is excellent in many ways and more folks need this information!
When I try to share it ( it’s the best way I know to get folks to subscribe or donate) it posts in a format that guarantees no one will look at it 😞. Can you find a way to share the content as it appears in the inbox, opposed to “referral “ w/blank box and a link to subscribe...
"It's important to note here that Facebook's algorithm is not reflecting reality — it's creating a reality that doesn't exist anywhere else."
That's the money quote, and it needs to be spread far and wide.
What a great article. Social media companies are responsible for so much that is wrong in the world, we need many more folks writing articles just like this one. This line really jumped out at me, it is spot on: "It's important to note here that Facebook's algorithm is not reflecting reality — it's creating a reality that doesn't exist anywhere else." That alternative reality is making the social media companies absurdly rich and making the world a much worse place. Thanks again for this piece.
That's the truth that leaped out at me, too. How can consumers / users pressure FB to make needed changes? For ex, they could set a different ranking for legit news organizations -- those that follow journalistic standards, and rank opinion pieces lower than actual news, etc.
I find it ironic that at the same time that Facebook algorithms and moderators "turn a blind eye" to the egregious lies and misinformation of the right-wing media they amplify, they apply strict and strange criteria to health information sites like mine (thedoctorweighsin.com).
I used to spend a fair amount for an organization my size on "boosting" my stories on Facebook. Not infrequently, I would be told I couldn't boost a story because it violated their guidelines. For example, they rejected a story with a stock photo of a baby getting a childhood vaccination because the picture was "too violent."
I took a hiatus from spending on FB ads but recently restarted in an effort to buffer my site from the wild swings in organic search traffic due to Google's frequent and damaging changes in their search algorithm.
Lo and behold, two or three ads in I get one rejected. It was a story (written by a respected board-certified dermatologist) about skin tags (a benign condition that affects about half of the population). It explained why some people should be cautious before attempting to remove skin tags themselves. The accompanying featured photo was the neck of a person that had numerous skin tags (wild, right, I used a photo of skin tags to illustrate a story about skin tags). The boost was rejected because it violated guidelines. Photos like these they said could make people feel bad about themselves.
So, let's see, favoring right-wing sites with rhetoric that threatens our democracy = OK.
Photos about a medical condition that show that medical condition = too damaging to be promoted beyond my regular readers.
Hey Judd what about the political profile of the Facebook userbase? If the users skew more conservative, couldn’t that contribute to the skew in content reach/popularity?
Was just asking myself that question.
Great reporting but we already knew this. Joel Kaplan is in bed with Ben Shapiro and the Daily Wire. They're buddies so he illegally boosts his pages. When they police themselves, of course nothing will change. I've been banned by twitter permanently for saying that Tomi Lauren "sounded like a bimbo" but Donald Trump and far-right 'news' publications can pump out lies and insight and insurrection at the capital but they might be allowed back on the platform because they generate views and make money. Twitter and Facebook do not care about anything on their platforms. They simply care about their bottom line.
Judd, a truly excellent and informative analysis. The BEST I have see online to day. Well done! ❤️
Judd, this is an issue that I am personally involved in trying to help solve at my job. This MIT Technology Review article shows "one" chart that not only shows the problem but the solution. The claim in the article, that Facebook can’t tamp down on dis/mis-information because the AIs are too easily fooled by rapidly evolving forms, is --extremely-- disingenuous. A very simple algorithm could be derived from the graph they provided, that would allow them to do so. It doesn’t have to use an AI, just throttle anything with a hockey-stick-looking engagement rate, at least until the content can be reviewed. Even better, always do it. The thing is they won't, because it will impact their bottom line. This is exactly the sort of case that calls for government regulation - when companies get too large, have too much power, and their interests are against the public good. They have to be legally required to change their behavior.
https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/03/11/1020600/facebook-responsible-ai-misinformation/
I dropped FB from my life over a decade ago. I have never regretted the decision. I don’t need an algorithm to tell me what to read. I have friends all over the country (world, even), and I have no trouble keeping in touch with them. I am happy paying WP and NYT to get through their pay walls. I use DuckDuckGo for search and pay $50/year for an email account that is NOT hosted by Google. Try it; you’ll like it.
That's all good. Our problem isn't you. It's the gazillions of FB users who're getting a daily dose of the Daily Wire, poisoning our politics in the process.
I still have an account and still use it daily. But I never use the feed and only see it on those rare occasions I share an article from the NYT. At all other times, my FB page is on my wall or one of my friends' walls.
Thank you, Judd, for your investigative journalism and shining a light on issues that companies and billionaires would rather stay hidden from the general public!
Your journalistic instincts are terrific. This is one of your best articles. Keep up the great work!
Bad or good, FB is the mouth piece of the world. Just think the quest for Ad Money has almost brought America to it's knees. Give it time. The I don't read my Ads is impossible as they are allover the place. I have a news feed full of cat stories and crockpot recipes. Never join a group is my advice. Those Trumpers joined Daily Wire and that's all they see. So throw in some survival gear ads, Flags, red hats and the list goes on.
Yet.
I know Alexa and "Gladys" (My Google Assistant) and Siri listen, and they also follow me around Google. Best case ever is my son searching for a Hokie stone for his house 3 hours away. He talked about it and searched for it. Used two devices his computer and iPhone.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, 2 days later Mom(me) who has ordered VA Tech stuff through a FB Ad gets an AD on FB for Hokie Stone. It is posted on my news feed where I happily post pics of kids, food, my animals and block Trump followers on my account. I ❤️ my friends stories and pics, etc. The thing FB does best is keep me connected to family and friends. Three days later talking to him in person he bemoans he can't find a Hokie Stone. I said. "I can, I got an ad from FB two days ago. So Searched my feed, it popped up under the Cathy stuff on my wall in a search. The rest is history. He owns a Hokie Stone.
My point is. Social Media is Big Brother. I sent my kids snack boxes on Amazon back in November via the site/I get snack Ads on FB.
Am I going to drop FB as a user? Likely not. I enjoy keeping up with my far and wide FB friends and family. I watch live feed church services because I hate zoom. I listen to music and follow heart wrenching videos on the Dodo...
I can tell you that that pay wall on the NYT and WP is why they lose out and the Daily Wire gets so many hits because they rely on Ad revenue instead.
So no oversight board is ever going to stop those Ad sales. Deny and hate on FB all you want it is at this point uncontrollable. Most people are not going to drop it completely from their lives.
Ol Zuck laughs his way through his glad handing at the Federalist Society Dinner and wears his Caesar haircut like the Empire ruler he is.
Excellent reporting. If we could only get you an Ad on the FB Empire...
Always appreciate your work, Judd. This is a vexing problem. Thoughts on what we can do about it?
So if I post this to Facebook will I be booted off?
Superb. Thanks