It actively uses its algorithm to radicalize racists and conspiracy theorists, and when it discovered that's what it was doing decided to keep doing it because it was good for the bottom line:
An alternate explanation is that the algorithm tries to promote engagement and user retention. Presumably, people susceptible to radicalization engage with the content discussed in the article. It would be unreasonable to expect Facebook to not act in its own self-interest.
> An alternate explanation is that the algorithm tries to promote engagement and user retention. Presumably, people susceptible to radicalization engage with the content discussed in the article. It would be unreasonable to expect Facebook to not act in its own self-interest.
That's the whole point. Oh they're just trying to make a buck like everyone else is exactly the problem.
They are a running a paperclip maximizer that turns passive consumers of misinformation into "engaged" radicals and the system that is Facebook has no incentive to correct this.
To recap, you seem to be concerned that all social media are allowing posts to become popular, and those posts sometimes promote hatred towards conservatives or liberals.
Two questions:
- What do you think should be done about the legacy media that is doing the same?
- Should social media promote boring posts, or actively censor political content in favour of a certain viewpoint, or anything else? Perhaps a real-life name registration for anyone with over 1000 followers, like in China?
> those posts sometimes promote hatred towards conservatives or liberals.
Incorrect assertion. Those posts promote hatred and/or violence toward humans for traits those humans did not choose. e.g. race, sexual orientation, etc.
Legacy media aren't actively amplifying the voices and recruiting efforts of white supremacists.
Facebook is. They acknowledge that they are. They chose to actively allow and encourage it for profit.