[gumby]

You have to wonder why what it shows you is toxic. My FB feed is mostly animals and math jokes, a few updates on my friends' kids plus some landscapes from my home country. This is what I want from it and nothing more.

Am I using it wrong? Are you?

[rubycon22]

Your post is probably why we should regulate the algorithms they use. It's bullshit that they can influence what shows up on your feed, and then they blame you for it. "Oh, you must be the toxic one if all you see is toxicity..."

[wutbrodo]

I think your projecting your own feelings onto the parent comment by adding "you must be toxic" to the beginning of that sentence. The only thing the parent commenter said is that the pattern of one's use can feed into the toxicity of their feed, without any judgment of that pattern per se. Nontoxic patterns that lead to toxicity exposure could be something as simple as "likes to read and post (non-toxically) about politics or social causes".

The takeaway of the parent comment was that there are plenty of ways to use FB, perhaps in constrained ways, that don't lead to toxicity and don't require leaving the platform.

Im not personally a big FB user, but have applied this very successfully to my Reddit and Twitter usage. I follow/subscribe to a very small number of very high-quality accts/subreddits, and am selective about when I read the comments. I'm able to derive a ton of value from this[1] pattern of usage without running into the bottomless pits of stupidity and malice that the average reddit/Twitter experience contains.

[1] including the holy grail: a political discussion forum full of a wide variety of viewpoints and populated solely by mental adults

[jjj123]

I think you’re probably right about the intention of the original comment, but that doesn’t change the fact that it puts the responsibility on the user to change their habits to avoid toxic content, instead of on the platform.

These platforms use our conscious actions (what we like, who we follow) and our subconscious actions (how long we linger on particular posts, what kinds of posts keep us on the site longer than others) and produce something that is often toxic. You’re right that if you’re hyper conscious of your own interactions you can curate a peaceful feed, but idle browsing for anyone even slightly political is going to lead you down a rabbit hole.

That’s something the platform can change, and imo is something the platform is responsible for, since they’re the ones who made the ML algorithm that’s amplifying toxic content.

[wutbrodo]

> it puts the responsibility on the user to change their habits to avoid toxic content, instead of on the platform.

Why do you think this is true? Taking action to control what you can of your own welfare is entirely orthogonal to and doesn't diminish at all the responsibility of other actors. It's just wallowing in self-destructive victimhood to pretend that you can't take self-protective action while still advocating just as strongly for actors like Facebook to be held responsible.

Ie, the leap you're describing from "you can use Facebook healthily" to "Facebook bears no responsibility for the unhealthy usage patterns of most of its users" is one that no one but you (and the commenter you're agreeing with) has made.

[Barrin92]

if your Facebook feed is dominated by math jokes and landscapes then I think it's fair to point out that your connections on the site are not exactly representative of the average citizen, going by Facebook's most popular sites.

So OP isn't using Facebook wrong, they are probably just less socio-economically insulated.

[rightbyte]

In large I stopped using FB 4-5 years ago but at the time I got alot of videos of people hurting themself in "funny" accidents.

I distaste those kind of videos. I have no clue why the algorithm spammed me with those.

[shripadk]

It doesn't matter if your feed is filled with mostly animals and math jokes. Facebook/YouTube or any social media provider will still send you one video that is not based on your profile under certain circumstances. Have you ever stumbled upon a video where you have comments like:

1. I don't know how I got here. I was watching some [insert something innocent here]

2. Thanks [service] for recommending me this video after 10 years of it being uploaded

3. Is [service] trying to tell me something? Am I going to die? Why am I being recommended this [horrible/violent/repugnant video]?

4. I am on the wrong side of [service] again.

And many more.

If you have ever come across such comments on any videos you watch it just is the algorithm deciding to show you something completely unconnected to the profile it built about you. Why? Because these services don't like creating silos of information where users with affinity to that silo flock to. They can't make money that way because the number of advertisers for that niche may be very less. The algorithm then decides that you need to be shown other niches too. Keeps trying until you see multiple videos in a particular niche. Then it builds a new profile about you with that niche added in. This is the rabbit hole which is so hard to avoid. Once you fall into it, it is not easy to come out of.

Now if your feed is filled with only animals and math jokes that is because you fall into a big enough bucket that these services don't bother showing you anything else. Even if you occassionally click on something political, violent or clickbaity. There are enough advertisers in your bucket for them to make their moolah. You are just lucky... For now. But if popularity for animal videos tanks tomorrow don't be surprised if these services recommend videos titled "Shocking accident caught on tape! You won't believe what happened next". That's how the downward spiral begins!