This article is part of the On Tech newsletter. You can do this Register here Getting it on weekdays.
Calling violence based on QAnon conspiracy theories, promoting bogus health remedies and false claims of electoral fraud is a common formula: Facebook group.
For people with a common interest, these forums can be wonderful communities for children in the same neighborhood or parents whose children have a rare disease. but For the year, It is also clear that the group turbocharged some people’s inclination to get into hot online fights, Spread information whether it is true or not And the sacrificial goat of others.
I do not want to oversee and blame Facebook groups for every bad thing in the world. ()Read my colleague Kevin Ross’s latest column about tips on targeting polarization and engaging people in purposeful activities.) And Facebook’s loss is not as easy as critics of the company believe.
But many of the toxic side effects of Facebook groups are a result of the company’s choice. I asked several experts in online communications what they would do to reduce the downfall of groups. Here are some of his suggestions.
Stop automated recommendations. Facebook has said that it will extend a temporary halt to computerized recommendations for people to join politics-related groups. Some experts said that Facebook should go ahead and stop the computer-aided group’s suggestions altogether.
It is good that Facebook suggests a forum about giving roses to someone who posts about gardening. But over the years, Facebook’s group recommendations have easily manipulated and pushed people towards faster-growing ideas.
In 2016, according to a Wall Street Journal reports, Facebook’s research found that two-thirds of people joining extremist groups did so on Facebook’s recommendation. Automatic group recommendations were A method that spread the QAnon conspiracy theory, My colleague Sheera Frenkel has said.
Ending these computerized suggestions is not a silver bullet. But it is crazy how many activists and academics have shouted how damaging the recommendations are, and Facebook has only tinker on the margins.
Provide greater oversight of private groups. Social media researchers Nina Jankovic And Cindy Otis To propose means groups above a certain number of members are not private – newcomers must be invited and outsiders cannot see what is being discussed without regular human review of their content.
“A lot of toxic groups are unarmed and just invited, and that’s extremely problematic,” Jankowicz told me.
Jankowicz and Otis have pushed for more consistent descriptions of groups and More transparency Who manages them Political discussion groups are sometimes deliberately misguided by their hosts as “personal blogs” so that Facebook can avoid the extra attention that applies to political forums.
Target habitual group criminals. Renee DiestaA disinfection researcher at the Internet Observatory in Stanford said Facebook needed to take “more decisive action” for those groups Engage in repeated harassment Or break Facebook rules again and again. Facebook did Take some steps in this direction Last year.
Jade Magnus OgunacayA senior director in the racial justice organization Color of Change also said that Facebook should be discontinued. Contractor to review material on site. It is more appropriate to convert those employees into employees, she said, and it can help improve the quality of work that takes place in groups.
Add something … Librarian? Joan donovanThe research director of Harvard University’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy suggests that large Internet companies live on rent. Thousands of librarians provide information available to people To counter wall groups in false information.
Superstars are not awesome in everything
Jeff Bezos is fond of saying Failure is healthy Because people and companies learn from it. But sometimes failure is the result of a company’s weaknesses, and that’s not a good thing.
News articles have come up in the last few days about both Of amazon And Belongs to google The inability to make their own successful video games despite having endless cash and smart people at their disposal.
The roots of their failures are complex, but two problems came to my mind about what happened: cultural soft spots and patriarchy. (And in the case of Amazon, an exaggeration on the knowledge surrounding BezosJeff-imes, “Like the one above.)
Here’s what happened: This week Google said it was shutting down its group dedicated to making video games. And Bloomberg News detailed the reasons behind Amazon’s repeated flops to create its own high-powered video games.
Stating Amazon’s struggles as a reflection of its Amazon-ness, it reported that an obsession with data led people to lose focus on the fun of the game. Confident of his company’s expertise, executives forced employees to use Amazon’s manufacturing game development techniques rather than industry-standard.
Google, too, has impervious habits for all its successes that sometimes make it difficult to break into unfamiliar areas. Technology News Publication Information informed of This week on Google’s business conflicts that sell cloud computing technology to companies.
Google engineers are treated like kings, and it’s hard to persuade them to come up with three-year product road maps that corporations love. The Google Cloud business has struggled for years with the same root problem – Google’s plagued plaintiff habits of its business customers.
The magic (or annoying) thing about cash-rich superstar companies is that they can often turn failures into successes. But Amazon and Google’s difficulties in businesses outside their core expertise are a reminder that being rich and smart sometimes blinds companies to their weaknesses.