Why Facebook and advertising supported content at huge scale is doomed by wokeness

avatar

TL;DR

My thoughts:

  • Self policing and relatively small communities are going to be the places we want to create and inhabit on the web.

  • This is what I first found on the Internet (Usenet for example) and then the web as web forums took over from the early 90's onwards.

  • Global platforms will drown in their own desire to enforce rules they've created for themselves.

  • The future of the internet is local and narrow and mass advertising will not work.

  • Anything we can do to have content consumers directly compensate content creators will disinter-mediate and destroy both large Internet platforms and the Advertising business model they exclusively use.

WSJ says what?

For weeks now the Wall Street Journal has been publishing extensive extracts of documents pulled from inside Facebook by their much vaunted "whistleblower". I don't think she's a whistleblower, I don't think she has a strong case before the SEC and I'm deeply suspicious that this is all a ploy to bring the US Government in to managing content via some regulator which Facebook will inevitably capture.

But I want to look at what Web 3.0 and our scrappy little rebellion can learn from inside Facebook.

These quotes come from this paywalled article which might be available elsewhere

The cost of hate

Speaking about 2019:

“Within our total budget, hate speech is clearly the most expensive problem,” a manager wrote of the effort in a separate document, declaring that the cost of policing slurs and the denigration of minority groups, which Facebook rules bar, “adds up to real money.”

It's clear from the preceding section that in this case, Facebook's definition of "real money" is around the $100m per year mark. For context the 2020 revenue of Facebook was $85.97b and the net income was $29.15b. So hate speech hunting is still a rounding error on both turnover and profit.

But nevertheless it is "real money".

Roughly 75% of the costs came from employing people to review user complaints, the vast majority of which were deemed, after review, to not be hate speech, the documents show. In 2019, beyond simply cutting the number of contractor hours dedicated to reviewing hate speech, the company began employing an algorithm that led them to ignore a larger percentage of user reports that the system deemed unlikely to be violations.

AI doesn't work

The story then repeatedly hammers AI as being next to useless. What Facebook seems to have done is every form of statistical trick known to man, to overstate the usefulness of AI. The bottom line is

The performance of Facebook’s automated systems illustrates how difficult it is for Facebook and other tech companies to build systems that reliably and comprehensively detect content that breaks their rules.

“This is one of the hardest problems in machine learning,” said J. Nathan Matias, an assistant professor at Cornell University. “It’s also an area that so many companies and policy makers have just decided was going to be the solution—without understanding the problem.”

What do the cows say?

Facebook conducts surveys of its users sometimes, but by users they really mean the dairy cows they milk for content against which they make billions of dollars selling advertising (using an analogy I explained on the Podland podcast). The customers of Facebook are the companies who buy advertising.

But Facebook does ask these users questions about "hate" and removal of content and they give Facebook answers which I believe are skewed massively by a woke agenda which Facebook has itself created.

While Facebook removes a tiny fraction of the content that violates its rules, executives are particularly sensitive to what it calls “over-enforcement,” or taking down too many posts that don’t actually violate hate-speech rules, according to people familiar with the matter. The emphasis on preventing those mistakes has pushed company engineers to train models that, in effect, allow for more hate speech on the platform to avoid false positives, according to the people.

Its own internal research shows that Facebook users world-wide are more concerned about lack of enforcement. In March 2020, Facebook found that users, on average, rated seeing violating content like hate speech as a more negative experience than having their content taken down by mistake, according to the documents.

And at them same time a small but highly vocal band of anti free-speech extremists put huge pressure on corporations to not have their advertising run alongside "hate speech".

Facebook are hobbled from within by cohorts of woke staff and best from outside by the woke agenda. It looks like they are heading toward a perfect storm.

My Opinion

I don't think user generated content, where the resources to publish it derive from advertising, scales globally. It has got us this far, but will now go through a protracted and painful death.

The local advertising component of Facebook will be hugely powerful for a long time to come, but they are likely to destroy this too by failing to grab the young audience they'll need in the next 20 years. And it is their own Marxist indoctrination of that youth which will stop them coming onto Facebook.

All the work I'm doing on value 4 value and Podcasting 2.0 is heading toward a future where small communities and audiences sustain content creators directly without the need for vast intermediaries who add nothing like Facebook.

I'm optimistic we are creating the tools which will render Facebook obsolete at the same rate wokeness destroys Facebook.

burn facebook burn.jpg


Support Proposal 188 on PeakD
Support Proposal 188 with Hivesigner


brianoflondon hive footer.png



0
0
0.000
17 comments
avatar

„All the work I'm doing on value 4 value and Podcasting 2.0 is heading toward a future where small communities and audiences sustain content creators directly without the need for vast intermediaries who add nothing like Facebook.“

🙋🏼‍♂️ I more and more believe too that this will be the future. Digital, direct and decentralized.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Back to roots, the way the internet was in the beginning.

0
0
0.000
avatar

I'm optimistic we are creating the tools which will render Facebook obsolete

As far as I know, many people have started quitting Fakebook and looking out for tools, that we are creating. We are not far from success.

0
0
0.000
avatar

This is a good topic I wish people on Facebook can can see this, cause it will awaken them.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Congratulations @brianoflondon! You have completed the following achievement on the Hive blockchain and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :

You distributed more than 79000 upvotes.
Your next target is to reach 80000 upvotes.

You can view your badges on your board and compare yourself to others in the Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word STOP

To support your work, I also upvoted your post!

0
0
0.000
avatar

Relatively small communities are going to be places where we will be able to create and live on the web. Those communities, like Facebook, will become narrower and blockchain-based decentralized media will be the focal point of trust. Provided many nice feedback.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Very inciteful post.
I think you are correct that supporting social media apparatus with advertising revenue is a biased approach and is dying as people wake up and realize that they are mistreated because they are not Facebooks customers, the Advertisers are. The people using Facebook are the people who count, oddly enough. But if they left Facebook, it would wither in the vine.

Posted Using LeoFinance Beta

0
0
0.000
avatar

I feel Facebook will destroy itself. It's too compartmentalized. And advertising like they do, is obsolete. People should be rewarded for their content, like on Hive. That has a future. And it's only fair, because people put their time in it.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Excellent analysis, @brianoflondon !

When you mention that "Self policing and relatively small communities are going to be the places we want to create and inhabit on the web", do you think that Hive could create bridges with the ActivityPub protocol, used in the Fediverse?

I've been a "Mastodon" user for a couple of years, and that ecosystem is growing at a steady pace (if I correctly remember they're now above 3 million users on Mastodon only), along the lines you describe - self policed and self-hosted communities, FOSS code and ethics, privacy, free speech - but without rewarding content creators.

0
0
0.000
avatar

I like Mastadon, we use it for Podcastindex.social but where it falls down is that someone has to set it up, run it and pay for it. That's great if someone does that but who, and how are they rewarded?

Hive brings along the self consistent reward package which gives me the confidence that it will keep on running!

0
0
0.000
avatar

Wow, I didn't know Podcastindex.social existed, magnificent!

Yes, the idea would be to set up a "hybrid" solution combining the solidity and flexibility of Mastodon (that doesn't require from each instance to host the whole chain transactions history) and the self-sustainable rewarding mechanism of Hive, through a crypto.

I'm looking for an infrastructure that could allow the thousands of Salvadorans we're teaching the importance of decentralisation and the use of LN to communicate inside our Community: why not coupling the creation of LN nodes with the one of autonomous e-mail and forum servers, where worthy forum posts would be upvoted with sats? (a friend told me about "Sphinx Chat", but it seems that there one has to pay sats to send each message, and the servers owners are the only ones to be rewarded).

0
0
0.000