I don't think that problem solves itself if they get rid of algo ranking. Misinformation on WhatsApp chats have literally lead to multiple lynchings, and it can't possible be said to stem from any algorithm promoted the content out of order.

I'm clearly against the HN grain here but I actually think these companies do have a civic duty to actively dampen viral spread of information; there are plenty of clear cases where it is leading to Pizzarias being shot up, and almost no cases where I've seen viral information rapidly propagating on these networks is valuable.

They used to do that, but the "problem" they ran into is that the people the average person knows in real life don't produce enough Facebook updates to keep users glued to Facebook all day. Time spent on Facebook = money for Facebook (more ads can be shown) so it's more profitable for them to push "recommendations" for more "engagement."

The discussion about the algorithmic feed seems to be out of context for this thread (i.e., Facebook is now claiming official CDC.gov links are “False Information”)

I don't believe the problem is facebook recommending anything -- the problem is facebook trying to ban certain content entirely (at least in the context of this thread -- algorithmic feeds are a separate problem.)

No promoting content, no need to flag misinformation.

I fully agree with this. It flys in the face of what I have even seen recommend on HN for TikTok. I’ve seen posts saying the algorithm on TikTok is the best and it gives great suggestions. I guess my question to you is, do you think TikTok has a superior algorithm to Facebook/YouTube or is promoting content on any level going to lead to misinformation?

Just as a foreign newspaper can be the best way to find out the actually important things going on in your country/culture, maybe a foreign algorithm (or rather algorithm-moderation complex - I suspect facebook recommendations have a lot more manual tuning than anyone would admit) will be better at recommending in a neutral way. (TikTok of course has blatant biases on particular issues - but they're issues that are less relevant to most westerners than the things which Facebook/YouTube recommendation is biased about).

As others have pointed out, the major social platforms all ban content regardless of reach, and even in private messages.

The problem is sometimes misinformation attracts far more people and therefore just like promoted

> I'm not making the connection between an algorithmic feed and anything I wrote.

> The title of this thread is 'Facebook is now claiming official CDC.gov links are “False Information”'.

> I don't believe the problem is facebook recommending anything -- the problem is facebook trying to ban certain content entirely

You say you don't believe (a), and you state that the problem is (b). I'm seeing "belief" without substantiation in both of those sentences. I'm also actively not taking username "gunapologist" as related to the merits of beliefs or statements in any way.

Finally, it's not clear to me that Facebook is a censor. I hold they have a right to promote or not promote whatever they want. Give someone a megaphone, suddenly anyone not handed a megaphone cries censor. No, just not amplified. Commercially, choosing not to promote a thing is much like a TV channel choosing not to run an ad or sponsor an event, something they choose to not do all the time.

I'd rather FB promote nothing, go back to a timeline of posts from my connections, and seems like "a problem" (one of many) is solved.

> I'm also actively not taking username "gunapologist" as related in any way.

rotfl touché

> I'm seeing "belief" without substantiation in both of those sentences.

that's why I said "believe". my opinions about what facebook should and shouldn't be doing are simply that.. opinions.

if I were to say any of this on facebook, it's possible that I could immediately be banned, and where's the fun in that. (that's a serious question.. isn't facebook supposed to be a fun place to communicate? if we have to worry about the ban hammer, how is it either?)

Moderation should be like HN: light, but still there. If it gets too heavy, civil discourse dies. If it disappears, then the place might turn into lord of the flies. (although, I hope a place like that always exists, too.)

I agree with everything here, FWIW. :-)

I have a friend who posts once in a blue moon. When he posts, it's usually the first thing on my feed, even many days later. My wife's cousin posts batshit stuff multiple times a day. I fail to see how a strict timeline won't result in my stream being more looney?

Before the algo feed they’d already implemented filtering so you could stop seeing social addict connections’ posts. You could also do groups with different notifications and post filtering. If you really wanted to catch up on your wife’s cousin’s train-wreck of thought, you could still click into her.

You claimed the algorithm is responsible for increasing virality of dumb thoughts. Yet my counterexample is that it reduces it. I believe removing the algorithmic feed alone is not going to solve the problem of misinformation.

Wouldn't that just result in social pressure to post at acceptable levels, or people unfriending you for posting too much shit?

...Upon rereading, I realize that I'm probably implying my own preferences as universal.

Ask the prolific poster to turn it down or unfollow them. Wham, solved.

This idea seems to a weird new talking point that just... doesn't make any sense?

If you post porn to Facebook they'll delete it from your album, even if you've chosen for it to skip the newsfeed altogether, or if it's only flagged long after it appeared in anyone's newsfeed.

Nobody believes that something showing up in their newsfeed somehow implies approval by Facebook. Nor would some time-ordered newsfeed convince anyone that it's impossible for Facebook to remove individual items and get them off the hook when they don't act on harmful content.

The idea that any form of "curation" or "ordering" somehow creates full liability for content is some entirely arbitrary brainworm that's infecting people. Do you take full responsibility for all incoming e-mails that your spam filter doesn't flag? Is Google responsible for every single website that appears in any SERP? Is the firewall you configured reason enough to sue you if anyone gets past it and into the network?

No, none of these would make any sense. And in those cases it is, I presume, obvious that these are "best efforts" that can be useful without being 100% right, all the time. And that demanding perfection is tantamount to just outlawing the practice altogether.