Facebook does as little as it possibly can to change anything.
It added drastic naughty filters but beyond that, it doesn’t actually do much at all.
—
It seeks to increase our engagement. They’ve been attempting to keep a hands-off not-our-problem approach to content which prior to massive online organizing of bad things was relatively ok.
-
Like
—-
But they’re closer to a land-mass as this point than a mere website. They’ve been laying UNDERWATER INTERNET CABLE, the stuff that nations and big telecommunication companies are supposed to do.
So I think they have a similar bearing of responsibility
===
I know, it’s painful. The BIAS we build into these things and the lack of critical analysis in our enthusiasm to adopt future brain tech leads us into trouble over and over again.
Or worse, they don’t lead us into trouble because we don’t know we’re heading into trouble.
===
Neuroscience is probably currently one of the most trusted of sciences, even more than quantum physics which took a hit after the string theory stuff — and there’s so much bs in it.
How about in tech? “brain on a chip”? Every time I see that, well, I cringe. It’s about all i can do about it.
It’s not that neuroscience itself is BS – it’s just it’s used for ridiculous things.
===
It’s true. I observed Facebook as it brought posts forward to me every day for a few years.
I watched : is this a post I will agree with or get mad about?
I watched the pattern. I then looked at what other people were doing on their feeds. Were they getting angry on days that I, too was shown a post that I would be antagonized by?
===
Kenneth Udut
sometimes they’d get me too. They’d show me a post that I was supposed to fire back in anger about — and I did.
But I tried my best to avoid that. But they’re good at what they do.===