Posted on Oct 5, 2021
Everything We Know About Facebook’s Secret Mood-Manipulation Experiment
498
14
8
7
7
0
An oldy, but even the left knew. Your fakebook feed is designed to keep you in an echo chamber and manipulate you emotionally. Their covert study never ended and it took a whistleblower to let the people in denial know the truth that they are still manipulating feeds.
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/10/04/facebook-whistleblower-reveals-identity-ahead-of-60-minutes-interview.html
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/10/04/facebook-whistleblower-reveals-identity-ahead-of-60-minutes-interview.html
Everything We Know About Facebook’s Secret Mood-Manipulation Experiment
Posted from theatlantic.com
Ethics
Social Media
Facebook
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 2
3
3
0
From the testimony this is how we learned this works:
The primary model shows content to users that is most likely to create engagement and generate and maximize revenue. As it turns out the type of things that keep us engaged are things that generate negative emotions. This is why political posts that get us fired up show up on our feeds. The more time we spend looking at them or replying to them the more of them we get and thus we go in a downward spiral. It's also why kids get content that makes them feel bad, not because they are targeting that content at them per se, but it's content that the model has determined will keep them engaged.
This is where where the Facebook official replies are disingenuous. Sure it's true that there is no conscious targeting of objectionable content to minors but they also know that the net effect of the engagement maximizing model is that kids will get that type content because of how it exploits human nature.
The second part is the "safety" models where they (before showing things to the user) filter objectionable content that the first model is determining should be shown. But as she stated this second part is unreliable, underfunded etc. For example, how are they going to remove objectionable content for minors when they are not even doing a good job of knowing who the minors are? Another example she gave is many of these safety models don't work in foreign languages so people in many countries are getting the raw results of the engagement model.
Her main point is that the secondary "safety" models are not funded well enough and will never be accurate enough to filter out the damaging results that Facebook knows the engagement model is generating. But the engagement model is really, really profitable so they don't want to change it nor I suspect do they want their safety models to be all that good.
The primary model shows content to users that is most likely to create engagement and generate and maximize revenue. As it turns out the type of things that keep us engaged are things that generate negative emotions. This is why political posts that get us fired up show up on our feeds. The more time we spend looking at them or replying to them the more of them we get and thus we go in a downward spiral. It's also why kids get content that makes them feel bad, not because they are targeting that content at them per se, but it's content that the model has determined will keep them engaged.
This is where where the Facebook official replies are disingenuous. Sure it's true that there is no conscious targeting of objectionable content to minors but they also know that the net effect of the engagement maximizing model is that kids will get that type content because of how it exploits human nature.
The second part is the "safety" models where they (before showing things to the user) filter objectionable content that the first model is determining should be shown. But as she stated this second part is unreliable, underfunded etc. For example, how are they going to remove objectionable content for minors when they are not even doing a good job of knowing who the minors are? Another example she gave is many of these safety models don't work in foreign languages so people in many countries are getting the raw results of the engagement model.
Her main point is that the secondary "safety" models are not funded well enough and will never be accurate enough to filter out the damaging results that Facebook knows the engagement model is generating. But the engagement model is really, really profitable so they don't want to change it nor I suspect do they want their safety models to be all that good.
(3)
(0)
Cpl (Join to see)
Their feed is the echo chamber. It is a dopamine hit when their followers agree with them, regardless. It's an addiction. They will lie to keep that dopamine hit. It is designed to be addictive to make them a number for ad revenue.
The occupy movement who decried business and government are now demanding "more control" while staring at their iphone and drinking an overpriced coffee.
The occupy movement who decried business and government are now demanding "more control" while staring at their iphone and drinking an overpriced coffee.
(0)
(0)
SPC Kevin Ford
Cpl (Join to see) - Both sides are mostly doing their equivalent of what you said. They look at their phones are read whatever media sources are telling them what they want to hear.
It seems the right didn't turn on Facebook until Facebook disrupted their echo chamber. Then they just turned to other sources and platforms where they were able to go back and hide in the right bubble while many people on the left continue to hide in theirs.
It seems the right didn't turn on Facebook until Facebook disrupted their echo chamber. Then they just turned to other sources and platforms where they were able to go back and hide in the right bubble while many people on the left continue to hide in theirs.
(0)
(0)
Cpl (Join to see)
Not all of us, I don't use facebook and I've cut the cable cord. I'm not beholden to a biased and man-made echo-chamber, nor am I beholden to any one news source. I am forced to do real research. All of my closest friends choose not to use facebook and have also cut the cord.
WHEN I used facebook, I had a plethora of ideologies in my feed. It wasn't an echo chamber when I was seeing both sides of the political arguments, which makes your "disrupted" argument subjective and opinionated. My family is extremely diverse, in both ethnicity and ideology, and it was when they (fb) deleted one of my posts, a video of a Malcolm X speech, I knew it was time to leave, because they were creating a political echo chamber.
WHEN I used facebook, I had a plethora of ideologies in my feed. It wasn't an echo chamber when I was seeing both sides of the political arguments, which makes your "disrupted" argument subjective and opinionated. My family is extremely diverse, in both ethnicity and ideology, and it was when they (fb) deleted one of my posts, a video of a Malcolm X speech, I knew it was time to leave, because they were creating a political echo chamber.
(1)
(0)
SPC Kevin Ford
Cpl (Join to see) - Like I said, I don't think they were trying to create a political anything. What it appears they were trying to do was take down just enough so they wouldn't be regulated and given current events that was a bunch of right wing stuff.
Now if you were on FB and FB friends with me you would find my feed is mostly the kitten and possum feed. Seriously. :)
Now if you were on FB and FB friends with me you would find my feed is mostly the kitten and possum feed. Seriously. :)
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
@Cpl. Kirk S.:
I am a Facebook coach. I have mentioned this before; on Rally Point.
I am a Facebook coach. I have mentioned this before; on Rally Point.
(3)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google