> My god, he thinks people like their feed algorithm.
So, besides this being hilariously out of touch, how come he (seemingly) believes this? Is this perhaps what he says to the public, while believing something else? Or surrounded himself with yes-people who won't actually tell him what they think? Or is he maybe just extrapolating this from usage data and assume because X hours of their day was spent on the feed, they like it?
It's just so hard to imagine how he got to that place, as I don't think I've ever heard anyone (online or offline) about how they like their feed order, it's always complaints about it and how they have to jump through hoops to get it into a chronological order, and hide all the spam/non-friends stuff.
I've seen similar patterns of behaviour at corporations that are extremely metrics-driven (I don't call it "data-driven" that's bullshit).
Management put up the metrics they care about and think they are doing well when those reach some thresholds. They stop thinking about the qualitative side of anything over the time, and truly believe if the metrics are going where they want to it's because people love the experience overall.
It's very McNamara fallacy-y. Even more when you get sycophants around to push whatever your vision is, even to the detriment of the overall experience.
The quote does not suggest that he thinks people like the feed algorithm, just that it knows a lot about them. Extending that to thinking an AI that knows a lot about you will be a likeable companion isn’t quite so crazy in that context. (Though it is seeming to disregard that many people think society would be healthier if people went outside with their friends more and instead goes all-in on AI dystopia.)
It's really just a political statement, he's saying that you better get accustomed to being overworked that you'd only have time for parasocial relationships like these AI absurdities they're coming up with.
From the limited views we've had of Zuck, I think it's fair to conclude he's not really a people person.
I've noticed that rich and/or powerful people have a particular bias. They have a tendency to think their thought processes and preferences extend out to everyone, because they are successful and everyone wants to be successful.
I noticed this with RTO. I think a lot of executives genuinely, really thought it would improve our (ICs) jobs. Because think about what executives do. They sit around, talk to a bunch of people, make a bunch of decisions, and ultimately try to "sell" things. Well, that kind of stinks over zoom. So for them, it's true, RTO does make their job better. They can't really fathom, or maybe they just refuse to, what our job is. They don't sit there and walk a mile in our shoes.
For someone like Zuck, maybe this is how he would prefer his friends to be. That's kind of sad and pathetic, but what's even more sad is that he seems incapable of understanding other perspectives.
I don't use Facebook since like a decade back, but lots of family, friends, acquaintances and neighbors do. What I've been teaching them is to block/report everything they come across that they don't like, and after a week or the experience seems to improve a bit for them.
Not just that, but he's also got this weird idea that the feed algorithm understands people.
Mine right now is:
1. Friend
2. Ad: Mothers day promotion — mine died years ago
3. People you may know
4. Someone commenting on a post shared by a friend, but FB didn't expand the post so I could actually read the comment, this was just an announcement that such a comment exists
5. Friend
6. Ad: jewellery
7. One of my own posts
8. "Are you interested in this post?"
9. One of my own posts
10. People you may know
11. The same people in #2 with a different picture for the same deal
And this is relatively competent! Usually it's just an endless stream of recommendations for things I have no interest in — meme groups, or support a team I've never heard of in a sport I don't follow in a state I've not visited in a country I was last in before the pandemic, or services I can only buy if I was both a citizen of a different country and living in an additional different country, or both (but as separate ads) dick pills and boob surgery.
I may not be interested in the mother's day promo or the jewellery, but I could at least theoretically buy them if I was.
But then I refresh it, and the friend's posts are reminders to vote… in the UK local elections… which were last week… and I live in Berlin.
On the plus side, this makes it very easy for me at least to not find it at all addictive. If only everyone was so lucky…
You're right. However, you must be gaslit and your true observations called into question, to protect the aura of the advertising industry and belief in the algoritms.
All of these algorithms are insanely effective. Thousands of smart people smarter than you made them, how could they not work? If they don't work on you, you're an outlier, they work on everyone else. They work on you, but you just don't realize it. All of these algorithms are insanely effective. Thousands of smart people smarter than you made them, how could they not work? If they don't work on you, you're an outlier, they work on everyone else. They work on you, but you just don't realize it. All of these algorithms are insanely effective. Thousands of smart people smarter than you made them, how could they not work? If they don't work on you, you're an outlier, they work on everyone else. They work on you, but you just don't realize it.
That's a really fun exercise. Mine shows:
1. A popular media personality I like and actually follow. The algorithm is sometimes OK with guessing the topmost post.
2. People you may know.
3. Some make-up advertisement by a Facebook user in one of the groups I'm in (totally irrelevant)
4. Some vaguely relevant news item about my city
5. A cute puppy
6. A vaguely relevant news item again
7. Irrelevant reels
Basically, my life hasn't been enriched by seeing the feed in any way. The one in the top spot was fine but I actively follow that person anyway and check their profile from time to time, so I wouldn't have missed it.
If you ask around, how many people who constantly uses their feed you think will answer "I love this product and the feed I get"?
I don't know many people in real life who praises it, it's a thing that some are absolutely addicted to, others use as a pastime in the bathroom, in queues, anywhere they would get bored. Many even display the same behaviour as addicts, they don't want to be there, and have to create friction and obstacles to make them avoid it, just this weekend I taught a friend on how they could limit their time on Instagram after he opened up that it was just making him sad and he couldn't stop, tried deleting the app a few times and always ended up reinstalling in a couple of days.
You are falling into the same trap as Zuck, just because usage is high doesn't mean people like it.
The algorithmic feed is the default one whenever you visit the site. It doesn't mean people like it, only that this is where they go first before clicking through to the "Friends" feed — sure, they could bookmark the friends feed, but will they? I mean, I vaguely remember that a fresh install of safari has facebook.com itself as a default bookmark, though I always delete such things and memory is fallible.
And that's without counting the addictive vs. valuable distinction that the other replies are making.
So, besides this being hilariously out of touch, how come he (seemingly) believes this? Is this perhaps what he says to the public, while believing something else? Or surrounded himself with yes-people who won't actually tell him what they think? Or is he maybe just extrapolating this from usage data and assume because X hours of their day was spent on the feed, they like it?
It's just so hard to imagine how he got to that place, as I don't think I've ever heard anyone (online or offline) about how they like their feed order, it's always complaints about it and how they have to jump through hoops to get it into a chronological order, and hide all the spam/non-friends stuff.