Comment by mgraczyk

5 years ago

Posts like this completely misunderstand how companies like Facebook think and operate. As a result, they cause people to fight boogymen instead of working toward positive change.

Yes, using Facebook instead of doing something like talking in person or reading a book is probably worse for you in the long run.

But most people don't do those things instead of Facebook. Instead they use Tiktok. Or watch TV. Or read Teen Vogue. Or get drunk and watch reality TV. Or sit alone in their nursing home with no real connection to any other human.

Facebook doesn't want you to be addicted, addiction is bad for user retention in the long term. Facebook wants you to be a happy, healthy Facebook Family of Apps™ user. I know this because I oversee ML launches on some of the highly controversial/addictive surfaces on a certain Facebook property.

6 comments

mgraczyk

Reply
panic  5 years ago

Facebook employees want you to be a happy, healthy Facebook Family of Apps™ user. But Facebook as an emergent entity of its own has "wants" which can be hard to see from the inside. Facebook employees don't actually know what happens between each individual user and their Facebook account. You can do user studies, or gather aggregate metrics, but any technique you might use will obscure what's really happening in one way or another. And the whole internal idea of what is happening will naturally be bent toward what helps Facebook survive. In particular, it's very important that what Facebook employees are encouraged to imagine as positive change is not damaging to Facebook itself, or the company will eventually die.

  • mgraczyk  5 years ago

    Thanks for the reply.

    It's true that Facebook the company is an emergent entity, and that the companies behavior and "wants" don't necessarily match those of its employees.

    I disagree with the claim that "any technique you might use will obscure what's really happening in one way or another."

    RCTs that measure self-reported wellbeing and other engagement-independent measures of mental health do not obscure what's really happening. Techniques like this could be used to actively improve user health, even at a cost to engagement.

ksm1717  5 years ago

Given that the only thing like evidence available to the public regarding how Facebook thinks and operates is the outcomes, and any insider knowledge is, by nature, rife with conflict of interest, I don’t think you could expect anyone to assume benevolent intentions.

Not to mention I don’t know what would be effective work toward positive change from an outsider when the decisions made for and by the company are (completely reasonably) made internal to the company.

I kind of agree that the Facebook boogeyman stuff is played out, but it’s not like there’s much of an alternative to discuss.

qvrjuec  5 years ago

So at what point does the metric used for user engagement cross a threshold for 'addiction'? Wouldn't incentives to drive this metric up across the board to increase revenue outweigh the pressure to maintain a healthy relationship with the Facebook Family of Apps™? Regardless, I still can't see the motivation for Facebook to act in a way to ensure the user is healthy, only to ensure the user is engaged at an optimal level for Facebook and not the user.

fumar  5 years ago

I understand your POV and can empathize. I tell myself similar affirmations. "Our users value our features and content. They connect to the world for the better using us." But, I can't shake the truth of our business model – ad revenue. It drives the entire organization down a strict path.

Take an extreme example: A manufacturer of sugar. You started your company because of close proximity to sugar cane but over time the sugar industry grew. Then science revealed how bad sugar is for the human body in large amounts. Can you shift your business from selling sugar to an alternative? You are in the business of selling sugar and everything is centered around one goal "sell sugar". There is a subset of buyers that buy and consume in large quantities. Do you tell your consumers to stop eating sugar?

FB and similar are in the business of selling available ad inventory. Thanks to technology the availability and "sweetness" of it is unlimited. Can we quantify the potential individual or societal impacts? Science claims to think so and its not looking great.

rodgerd  5 years ago

> I know this because I oversee ML launches on some of the highly controversial/addictive surfaces on a certain Facebook property.

So you're a BAT scientist.