Facebook v1 reminds me of the original Ultima Online.
You could interact with all these new cool people, but quickly learned that there were a substantial minority that would kill you right after you left the town, because some people like doing that.
Later, they nerfed the entire environment and new players in v2 defaulted to a land of milk and honey with no conflict, only those that enjoyed v1 went out of their way in the advanced sign up process to find the land with the tattered windows and wandering murderers.
I think FB will have to metaphorically transition to v2, because it is, like UO, a place of other people.
To do this would mean defaulting users to seeing almost no news but local good news. National media would only be seen by those who find the advanced settings to turn on the noise. People posting inflammatory National news would be shadow banned, in essence, by having the post buried under posts with positive vibes. New users would be unable to get an audience, that would only be possible with sufficient karma that comes from upvotes and downvotes (which would have to be enabled but could be hidden from the poster).
unfortunately, this presumes theres a realistic profit motive for any social media site thst doesnt dabble in dark pstterns.
remember the dotcom boom? its because adsdvertisement distorts markets. advertisement is the deadend of capitalism.
take a look at all these "cancer awareness" campaigns that contribute nothing to actual cancer research or currs or support.
and facebook knows this. theres no v2 cash cow. in a dystopian nightmare, they capitalize on AR by immersing reality in a personal distortion field. imsgine taking all those camera filters and applying them to...everyone else.
its delusions all the way down. dark pstterns ad infinitum. thats the dead end of marketting.
I am grateful to Haugen for releasing the information she has. I hope it causes change. However, she seems to be outside her area of expertise when she opines on the best voting structure for Facebook shares.
They are stuck in a tricky situation. To admit they have responsibility means they should have set up code of conduct with manageable moderation from the outset (or at least not have open public pages).
Alternatively, would you trust Facebook to be the arbiter of what is harmful to the public? Do you think they would hold to data and evidence, or political consensus and their own self-interest?
I think Facebook has well and truly jumped the shark on morality or decency, they've had many opportunities to respond earlier.
You could interact with all these new cool people, but quickly learned that there were a substantial minority that would kill you right after you left the town, because some people like doing that.
Later, they nerfed the entire environment and new players in v2 defaulted to a land of milk and honey with no conflict, only those that enjoyed v1 went out of their way in the advanced sign up process to find the land with the tattered windows and wandering murderers.
I think FB will have to metaphorically transition to v2, because it is, like UO, a place of other people.
To do this would mean defaulting users to seeing almost no news but local good news. National media would only be seen by those who find the advanced settings to turn on the noise. People posting inflammatory National news would be shadow banned, in essence, by having the post buried under posts with positive vibes. New users would be unable to get an audience, that would only be possible with sufficient karma that comes from upvotes and downvotes (which would have to be enabled but could be hidden from the poster).