Read on Twitter
The meme that “platforms algorithmically amplify polarizing content because engagement drives ad revenue” has gotten seriously out of hand. Someone needed to burst that bubble. It’s such a bummer that the someone is Facebook VP Nick Clegg. 1/
https://nickclegg.medium.com/you-and-the-algorithm-it-takes-two-to-tango-7722b19aa1c21/
https://nickclegg.medium.com/you-and-the-algorithm-it-takes-two-to-tango-7722b19aa1c21/
People will give his points less credence because of who they’re coming from. (And posting them on Medium, as if they were independent musings and not a message crafted by Facebook’s Comms and Policy teams is an interesting branding gesture but isn’t going to fool anyone.) 2/
He’s saying so many things that are right, though. 3/
Not right as in “this means the ads + amplification meme has zero basis.” Right as in “this theory is only useful with major caveats and complications, so stop leaning on it like you’re a 17-year-old who just discovered Marx or Ayn Rand.” 4/
See, I’m almost as grumpy about this as Clegg is. But more at liberty to express myself. 5/
Did I mention I am also so, so close to finishing a big paper on this topic – focused on amplification and the First Amendment? I’ve thought about this a whole lot. 6/
To be clear, I think a lot of what FB says in the realm of platform regulation is cynical and self-interested. FB would thrive under regulations that pull up the ladder behind it, imposing burdens smaller competitors can’t shoulder. 7/
That's what we should see every time Clegg says this, which he says a lot 8/
But two big things he says strike me as unavoidably true. First, a rational ad-revenue driven company will not want to ceaselessly amplify content that pushes our buttons in the short term but leaves us feeling icky in the long term. 9/
The point about advertisers is real. Remember this: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/mar/25/google-youtube-advertising-extremist-content-att-verizon 10/
And this 11/ https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/jun/30/third-of-advertisers-may-boycott-facebook-in-hate-speech-revolt
And this, which is not creepy at all 12/ https://wfanet.org/knowledge/item/2020/09/23/WFA-and-platforms-make-major-progress-to-address-harmful-content
Platforms may want perfect the algorithm to amplify engaging content right up to the point before it triggers user and advertiser defection, of course. But that really complicates the ads+amplification meme. (Also it makes platforms a lot like regular media.) 13/
I do think Clegg gets carried away with this claim, and undermines the credibility of his valid points. 14/
His second unambiguously true point is this. People respond to emotionally engaging content (and worse: bias-affirming, tribal-identity-reinforcing, and rage-inducing content) because we are hardwired to do that. It’s how our brains work. 15/
Algorithms may detect from our behavior a revealed preference for sensational content, and give us more. But we also make that stuff go viral all by ourselves -- on platforms with no ads, and no algorithmic ranking. 16/
A smaller point: I think Clegg (or his Comms people) miss a step here, in a way that will unnecessarily anger people from the news business in particular. Clickbait headlines evolved because people click on them, but also because they got algorithmic promotion juice. 17/
It's kind of like platforms saying “we will reward this behavior until you adapt your business and get too good at it, and then we will punish it.” That’s the unavoidable cycle with spam or SEO. For news orgs, it has been awful. 18/
I’ll end on a note of agreement. Platform critics sometimes say, roughly, “if platforms can’t fix X, then they shouldn’t exist.” That’s fine as a moral stance. But the not-existing thing isn’t going to happen. So it’s a bad starting point for real-world analysis or advocacy. 19/
OK, gotta get back to actually writing my amplification article. (It is SO CLOSE to being done.) If you’re interested in good work on this in the meantime I recommend @PJLeerssen https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3544009 and @ellanso et al https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/AI-Llanso-Van-Hoboken-Feb-2020.pdf 20/
Aaaaaand here's the actual link. https://nickclegg.medium.com/you-and-the-algorithm-it-takes-two-to-tango-7722b19aa1c2
The most compelling pushback I’ve had on this is about losing long-term revenue if advertisers/users defect. Basically (1) FB is too dominant, there’s nowhere to defect TO and (2) businesses favor short-term profits over long-term all the time. 21/
I don’t think those negate the point. They complicate it in useful ways.
None of this can be explained by single causes or pithy explanations, including anything I said. (Not that I’m claiming pithiness in a thread this long.) 22/
None of this can be explained by single causes or pithy explanations, including anything I said. (Not that I’m claiming pithiness in a thread this long.) 22/
The other point I see a lot — about a Clegg’s piece, not my thread — is that the whole framing (and title, good lord) lands like he’s saying “this is your fault, users!” I hadn’t seen that at first, but yeah. Comms fail.
This from @WillOremus is also really useful https://twitter.com/WillOremus/status/1377808543894671362
And this on why “polarization” maybe only looks bad if you’re someone who benefits from the status quo. (To oversimplify—there’s a lot more to the thread.) https://twitter.com/kreissdaniel/status/1377984945789018114
