Interesting Links for 28-07-2023

[andrewducker]

1. Meta Just Proved People Don't Enjoy Chronological Feeds

(tags:facebook psychology )

2. Elon Musk's reinstates right-wing influencer after he posts child exploitation photos

(tags:Child_abuse Twitter ElonMusk wtf OhForFucksSake )

3. Google what our chatbot tells you... says Google

(tags:Google ai )

Comments

[calimac]

1) Who are these "people"? I enjoy DW (and LJ before it) because it has a chronological feed, and I was appalled when I learned that this is not FB's default. B. is on FB, and uses an add-on that forces a chronological feed. Without one, she'd been missing posts by friends that she'd most have wanted to see.
The secret is, limit your feed to people you actually want to read. The guy who posts photos of every meal he eats - out. The one who's friendly enough in person but turns out to be a right-wing ranter online - out.

[andrewducker]

I do have multiple filters on here, and that helps me keep up with the people I really want to vs the people who I like, but don't need to read every post of.

But I agree that I want to see everything in order.

[haggis]

In my experience, it is really dependent on how many people you follow in the site and whether you read your whole feed regularly.

If you follow a small group and want to hear everything that they say, then a chronological feed is unbeatable.

However, if you are an occasional user or follow a lot of people or follow lots of people/orgs that you don't know personally, then the algorithmic feed can be better, because in theory, you see interesting posts immediately. (Obviously, depends on how good the algorithm is.)

Unfortunately FB forces you to use the algorithm and actively prevents you from reading back far (posts start repeating, infinite scroll means you lose your place and refreshing sends you a whole different set of posts) which is why I spend about 5% of my Social Media time on FB.

[calimac]

Your second group sounds like people who don't really care what they read, so long as it interests them. Us first-group types join social media primarily to keep in touch with our friends. And then when we find interesting new people online (I have no connection with Andrew other than DW), we want to follow them too.

[bens_dad]

With the facebook "algorithm" users spent longer in facebook.
That is not the same measure as "enjoy".
I want to see what my friends are/have been up to and then go and read something else.

[hilarita]

Yes - spending more time there and/or interacting more doesn't necessarily equate to enjoyment. It's probably good for the company, but not necessarily for me! I may be more frustrated, more annoyed, rather than happier!

[rhythmaning]

I couldn't agree more. Chronological, every time!

[altamira16]

They are saying "don't enjoy" means "do not stick around and scroll endlessly." I would argue that not spending more time than necessary on a site means that it is serving the correct purpose in my life.

[movingfinger]

The Facebook algorithm experiment was, I assume, conducted on Facebook users who had long been trained to use and expect the algorithm to do their prioritizing for them. Hardly a clean test group.

[mountainkiss]

Agree with everyone here re chronological feeds and whom to follow.

[hairyears]

A commentator on Reddit r/Law has offered the following advice:

Twitter Ban

I do not regard Reddit as a reliable source and this should not be considered "Legal Advice" - consult a qualified and properly-registered practioner for that! - but I regard this as something a webside owner (and anyone posting links) needs to know.

[andrewducker]

Thank you!

[hairyears]

If that reinstated Twitter user posts CSAM again, Twitter is at risk of prosecution; if an individual manager or director can be identified as being directly responsible for that decision, they are in the frame for charges carrying a double-digit prison sentence.

I am not qualified to offer a legal opinion, and a registered Solicitor, Barrister (or US attorney) may well disagree: but they would definitely warn an individual in that position to seek legal advice immediately.

As indeed would I.

I trust that Elon Musk would do the same, and I look forward to reading that he has taken steps to distance 'X' from that decision at Twitter.

[andrewducker]

Elon seems to be the one who made the decision...

[hairyears]

Elon Musk is a towering figure of rectitude, compassion, moral courage and ethical rigour who is transforming society with his commercial perspicacity and visionary leadership.

This magnificent exemplar of of the Classical Virtues would surely never tolerate such turpitude.

I am certain that a judge and jury would be so overawed by his integrity and generosity of spirit that the charges - if it ever even came to court - would be dismissed with barely a glance at the flimsy 'evidence' and hearsay circulated by mediocrities who envy and resent his transformative genius.


Also, he has lawyers.

[anna_wing]

From the link, the child photos were in the context of a discussion of a conviction of a Westerner in the Philippines. So on the assumption that the poster or the discussion was not actually supporting the rape of children (I do not follow Twitter), surely it would have been sufficient to inform the poster that he was in breach of site rules and remove the photo itself, but not tremove the discussion or ban the poster.

[andrewducker]

Their terms of service are a strict zero-tolerance for posting it, regardless of intent. The law is largely the same - it tends to be a strict liability crime, where "I was doing it for good reasons" isn't considered a defence.

(I'd have expected, at the least, a significant suspension.)