Massassi Forums Logo

This is the static archive of the Massassi Forums. The forums are closed indefinitely. Thanks for all the memories!

You can also download Super Old Archived Message Boards from when Massassi first started.

"View" counts are as of the day the forums were archived, and will no longer increase.

ForumsDiscussion Forum → The influence of social networks on society
The influence of social networks on society
2016-12-05, 4:01 AM #1
Thoughts?

https://mondaynote.com/facebooks-walled-wonderland-is-inherently-incompatible-with-news-media-b145e2d0078c#.x618p25kz
former entrepreneur
2016-12-05, 5:17 AM #2
I hate Facebook and the lot (the only one I ever used was Twitter, which I mostly stopped using in March 2016 and stopped for good two weeks ago), but I also hate the news.
Star Wars: TODOA | DXN - Deus Ex: Nihilum
2016-12-05, 5:38 AM #3
The thing is, people want this. Same thing with the news. Are they being manipulated by a huge advertisement machine? Yes! Do they come back for more? YES! How would one stop this madness?

It's unnerving to see people's reaction to my response to their "do you have a Facebook?" question (which is usually a simple "no" but I did have one years ago); it's like a moment of suspicion. The again, I live in NYC, the city of "social media specialists".
SnailIracing:n(500tpostshpereline)pants
-----------------------------@%
2016-12-05, 8:24 AM #4
I've hated facebook since it started and I've never had an account there. Nor twitter or myspace or friendster or <insert any other social network here>. (Ok for a while I had a linkedin account because I lost my job and tons of places were asking for it but I've since deleted it.) I prefer smaller individual communities based around my individual interests. I've been here so long you guys probably know all or most of my other interests but I don't want my entire life centralized into one giant database known for being insecure even when they're not intentionally using your private information to advertise to your friends. The other problem I have with them is the using of "number of friends" as a currency of sorts, just like high school cliques. We should be evolving into better people not maintaining the same dynamics we had in high school.

Never mind people get so addicted to these things they can't drive, they can't focus on a conversation, they can't have dinner, they can't walk down the sidewalk, they can't do anything without pulling out their phones and checking their facebook accounts. Facebook needs to disappear and be replaced with nothing.
2016-12-05, 10:01 AM #5
Suspicion is natural, only criminals and hicks try to stay away from social networks. /s
Nothing to see here, move along.
2016-12-05, 10:06 AM #6
Facebook's laying bare the ineffectiveness of advertising, so it's not all that bad. There's at least a small chance that none of these services will exist in 10 years.

It's just that, you know, these ad-backed web companies optimize their products for repeat viewings, not for utility. People are initially attracted by real social benefits/consequences, but you don't get hooked on the content. These social networks have a magically tuned level of intrusiveness that teaches you to check the app frequently, but not so often that you get annoyed. You get hooked because Facebook trains you. Like a dog. And that's the real reason they added news in the first place, so that you'd always have some content to justify checking the app as often as they want you to check it.

People don't "want" Facebook any more than they "want" to bite their fingernails.
2016-12-05, 10:44 AM #7
When does the "want" turn into a need or addiction? From the first log-in? After they reach a certain level of utility?
SnailIracing:n(500tpostshpereline)pants
-----------------------------@%
2016-12-05, 10:56 AM #8
You'll Be Breathless After These 15 Astounding Reasons How "Want" Turns Into Need
Star Wars: TODOA | DXN - Deus Ex: Nihilum
2016-12-05, 11:22 AM #9
This is the only website in my Social bookmarks folder.
? :)
2016-12-05, 11:42 AM #10
Originally posted by Jon`C:
Facebook's laying bare the ineffectiveness of advertising, so it's not all that bad. There's at least a small chance that none of these services will exist in 10 years.


I wish this were true, but I'm doubtful. But how do you think Facebook exposes the "ineffectiveness of advertising"? In my opinion, it seems that to an ever increasing extent Google, Facebook, and other social networks, have created the very metrics (clicks, shares, views, etc.) that are used to measure the effectiveness of advertising, at least online advertising, the distribution of news (and only for younger Americans. 29 and younger is still the only age segment of the American population that gets its news from social networks more than anywhere else -- will assume that approximately reflects the effectiveness of advertising more generally).
former entrepreneur
2016-12-05, 11:52 AM #11
Originally posted by ECHOMAN:
When does the "want" turn into a need or addiction? From the first log-in? After they reach a certain level of utility?
To clarify, it's not need or addiction, it's an acquired habit. Social network apps ping you periodically just to make sure you haven't forgotten about them. That schedule is scientifically designed so that checking Facebook becomes part of your routine without any prompting. This process begins whenever you install the app. It never ends.

You don't have to "want" or "need" or have an "addiction" for something to be habitual.
2016-12-05, 12:08 PM #12
To further clarify, addiction is a self-reinforcing exposure to an intrinsically rewarding stimulus.

Facebook is an externally imposed exposure to an intrinsically negative stimulus. You check it for the same reason you feel to make sure you have your keys and wallet. Or make sure you have enough gas when you're driving. Or answer the phone. It's not something you're addicted to, or even enjoy, it's just something that you do.
2016-12-05, 12:19 PM #13
Originally posted by Eversor:
I wish this were true, but I'm doubtful. But how do you think Facebook exposes the "ineffectiveness of advertising"? In my opinion, it seems that to an ever increasing extent Google, Facebook, and other social networks, have created the very metrics (clicks, shares, views, etc.) that are used to measure the effectiveness of advertising, at least online advertising, the distribution of news (and only for younger Americans. 29 and younger is still the only age segment of the American population that gets its news from social networks more than anywhere else -- will assume that approximately reflects the effectiveness of advertising more generally).


It's created a vicious cycle where now even "traditional news sources" such as the New York Times are "optimizing" the content of their articles so that they perform better according to Facebook's numbers/metrics. It's a consolidation of power that will be difficult to undo.
former entrepreneur
2016-12-05, 12:55 PM #14
It's a twisted cycle. The news is now designed to be shorter and is broken up into tiny chunks separated by things you should click on and go somewhere else, thus never finishing the article, so you will make money for the news site. The advertising is designed to pull you away from the news. Everything is designed so you spend as little time as possible actually reading a news article and as much time as possible being pulled away to buy something. The news is designed to get you to stop whatever else you're reading and read it long enough for you to get distracted by the ads and go look at them. Argh.
2016-12-05, 2:48 PM #15
Originally posted by Jon`C:
Facebook's laying bare the ineffectiveness of advertising, so it's not all that bad. There's at least a small chance that none of these services will exist in 10 years.

I mean no offense to any -ians (past or present) who work for Facebook, but I am desperately hoping for the bubble of "****loads of personal data to target ads at people" to burst so I can watch Facebook and Snapchat crash and ****ing burn.

Once I learned I could keep Facebook Messenger but get rid of Facebook proper, I deleted my account. I don't like my conversations being kept on a FB server somewhere, but for friends from undergrad that's pretty much the only way they communicate anymore since they're entrenched in existing group chats.
I had a blog. It sucked.
2016-12-05, 3:51 PM #16
I imagine I'm not the usual Facebook user nor the type they care much about. I have legitimate news sources, people of substance, and then simply things of interest to me that I follow so I don't get much fake news from those sources. I've always been the sort to fact check chain emails and now Facebook posts from friends and inform them of the validity. I unfollow people I don't want to get sucked into mundane debates with. For example, a few years back the Republican led house proposed a one percent reduction in the cost of living allowance rate increase for retired service members. I've learned that you can't change stupid so I simply unfollowed people that were complaining about congress slashing retired pay. A one percent smaller increase is "slashing"? Morons.
"I would rather claim to be an uneducated man than be mal-educated and claim to be otherwise." - Wookie 03:16

2016-12-07, 11:39 PM #17
https://www.facebook.com/ads/preferences
Cordially,
Lord Tiberius Grismath
1473 for '1337' posts.
2016-12-08, 1:40 AM #18
Originally posted by Eversor:
I wish this were true, but I'm doubtful. But how do you think Facebook exposes the "ineffectiveness of advertising"? In my opinion, it seems that to an ever increasing extent Google, Facebook, and other social networks, have created the very metrics (clicks, shares, views, etc.) that are used to measure the effectiveness of advertising, at least online advertising, the distribution of news (and only for younger Americans. 29 and younger is still the only age segment of the American population that gets its news from social networks more than anywhere else -- will assume that approximately reflects the effectiveness of advertising more generally).


Originally posted by Eversor:
It's created a vicious cycle where now even "traditional news sources" such as the New York Times are "optimizing" the content of their articles so that they perform better according to Facebook's numbers/metrics. It's a consolidation of power that will be difficult to undo.


Missed this.

Okay, so here's the thing about advertising: It's all a lie. It's all just magical thinking. The whole advertising industry from the beginning up until about 2 thousand and Google was built upon the fact that it was impossible to conduct a double-blind study to determine the efficacy of an advertising campaign. So what company executives would do is, well, if sales increased at some point after your ad campaign started, you'd assume the sales increase is due to advertising. It's the same rigor of thought that says, my kid got autism after being vaccinated, so vaccines cause autism. Or my cancer was cured after I drank a ton of fruit juice, so fruit juice cures cancer. It's nonsense. It's magical thinking.

Actual evidence suggests advertising works in one situation, and that's when your brand is competing against many competitors with limited product differentiation (for example, deodorant or dish soap), and the viewer is young/hasn't been fixed on another brand yet. That's it. And even in these situations, the data is spotty. Like the Old Spice Man advertising campaign; that **** went viral, kids were sharing those videos with each other voluntarily. But did that wild popularity lead to increased sales? Evidence suggests the campaign did nothing. And if an enormously popular campaign like that isn't able to attract customers to your brand, nothing will.

And this is where Facebook comes in. Facebook gives you the tools to carefully tune your campaign to target a specific audience, up to and including race and religion, which I'd think is pretty much begging for a ****in' huge lawsuit but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. More than that, Facebook lets you tune the campaign enough that you can... A/B test it.

So guess what happens now, ****os?

That's right, you find out that advertising doesn't work. Despite having a laser focused campaign that narrowly targets exactly the kinds of people who need and want your product, you are able to get convincing evidence that your campaign does nothing.

And, well, then you have the fraud. Facebook basically got caught billing customers for clicks that didn't happen, although they had some excuse ready. Google does all kinds of adwords ****ery, mostly to avoid paying people who host ads. This is the kind of shady **** you gotta do, though, when your whole empire is based on something that doesn't work.
2016-12-08, 8:06 AM #19
Quote:
And, well, then you have the fraud. Facebook basically got caught billing customers for clicks that didn't happen, although they had some excuse ready.


I swear the way youtube used to load on my old phone was done on purpose to get you to click on ads accidentally. There's no good reason to code your website so that a frame doesn't appesr until some javascript inserts it at the top of the list after the main part of the page has loaded. I clicked on advertisements that popped up right below my thumb probably 20 times on that phone.
2016-12-08, 9:57 AM #20
Originally posted by Reid:
I swear the way youtube used to load on my old phone was done on purpose to get you to click on ads accidentally. There's no good reason to code your website so that a frame doesn't appesr until some javascript inserts it at the top of the list after the main part of the page has loaded. I clicked on advertisements that popped up right below my thumb probably 20 times on that phone.


Like I said, these companies optimize for revenue metrics, not for product quality. The engineer wouldn't have needed to use a dark pattern on purpose; these patterns are emergent when you A/B test under a sufficiently suspect metric, and have too few competitors for customer attrition to show up in your data.

This is the reason I say Google is pure evil. The foundational problems with a monopoly aren't social, they are mathematical. So when you rigorously optimize a monopoly for revenue, whether by process (A/B testing) or algorithm (machine learning), you're really making it the most monopoliest of monopolies. The Googlers generally aren't that evil, and probably don't intend for things to turn out they way they are, but that doesn't change the fact that they are in aggregate building the corporate personhood of the antichrist.

Facebook's the same thing.
2016-12-08, 10:35 AM #21
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13116703
2016-12-08, 10:56 AM #22
The worst thing about the situation is that "big data" is worthless.

Is it useful for businesses? No. The behavioral data for a likely prospective customer is almost identical to the behavioral data for an existing current customer. So, when you spend your ad money targeting your likely customers, a lot of that money ends up being spent advertising to people who are already paying you. (Ever see Google ads for a product show up right after you've already bought it? That's Google's "big data" hard at work.) The public is so disaffected by advertising that this kind of campaign would probably cost customers, not gain them.

Is it useful for the police? lol, no. They've tried that pre-crime ****, and it doesn't work. Black men from poor neighborhoods are disproportionately likely to be arrested and convicted of crimes. So, you know what happens when you crunch police "big data" and build a ML algorithm for crime detection? You get cops in poor neighborhoods shaking down black men. And you don't need a billion dollar server farm to do that, all you need is a guido mayor and an air traffic problem.

Is it useful for the NSA? Ahaha. That whole metadata collection **** is based on the idea that terror cells are well-connected subgraphs. So, you look at the social graph of a confirmed terrorist, and that tells you who to spy on. Okay, except we know that the easiest people to radicalize are depressed and socially isolated, and the bulk of that radicalization happens through passive consumption of recruiting materials. So, basically, the social graph isn't gonna tell you who other terrorists are. But it's fantastic if you want to persecute people for their legitimate business, social, and political affiliations!

Is it useful for governments? Absolutely! It's called a census. We've had it for thousands of years. Edit: And we've also known for thousands of years that, in order to get useful data out of the census, you need to have some idea of what you want to get out of it, and ask your population specific questions. Because collecting a billion random uncorrelated facts about every person is literally noise, and trying to reconstruct something meaningful out of noise is stupid.
2016-12-08, 5:46 PM #23
Big brand advertising is pretty useless...which is why you don't see a lot of it. Where this type of advertising is very effective is with all of the small millennial startups. I can tell you, with first hand experience, that this type of targeted advertising is orders of magnitude more effective for smaller companies than traditional advertising. Note that I am defining effective as being a ratio between sales and advertisement costs. There is a point where sales level off despite an increase in that campaigns budget. That's when you do a reversal and reduce the cost spent on that ad campaign while starting a new campaign in a different geographical area. Systematically doing this can, again, significantly grow a small business much faster than it could 10 years ago for a fraction of the marketing budget.
2016-12-08, 6:29 PM #24
How did you isolate growth caused by advertising spend vs other types of marketing and organic growth?
2016-12-08, 7:36 PM #25
I'm also curious why you say we don't see a lot of big brand advertising. Are you talking about specifically on facebook or online? The only place I see advertising is during football games and all I see is big brand advertising. Car companies, toothpaste, uh... airlines maybe? I can't remember anything else.
2016-12-09, 7:47 AM #26
When did you ever see an advertisement to try out facebook?
2016-12-11, 9:18 AM #27
The fact we're still here after 20 years is in part a testament to how ineffective global social media are compared to small community forums.

I can't stand any of that crap. Facebook, twitter, tumblr. The only one I can tolerate is reddit and that's with being very careful about what subreddits I visit. As long as it stays topical and anonymous I can get some value out of it.

As for advertising: I don't see any of it and haven't for years. The web can collapse on itself and revert to 1995 for all I care. I'd be happier for it.
"it is time to get a credit card to complete my financial independance" — Tibby, Aug. 2009

↑ Up to the top!