I’m surprised that people are surprised that this is where Facebook is going.
In the words of my friend Richard MacManus, in reference to this interview with Mark Zuckerberg in The Verge: ‘Mark Zuckerberg basically just confirmed that your feeds will soon be full of AI-generated content. Another reason the fediverse needs to exist: so that you can follow humans.’
I encountered bot epidemics on Facebook in 2014. You’d report them (eventually, as Facebook limited you to 50-odd reports a day) and they would remove them (sometimes it would take multiple attempts as their crew could be hoodwinked over what was real and what was fake, even then). By 2017, when I stopped using it for personal stuff, Facebook was down to a 0 per cent success rate on removing reported bots. You’d see bot nets of thousands of accounts. And even in 2014 they would chat to each other—even though the conversations made little sense—so you can imagine what they were like in 2017. Now, extrapolate that with “AI” in 2024, a decade later. Facebook failed then, they’re bound to fail now.
Since Facebook lies about its user numbers, no wonder this is where things are going. Zuckerberg, in the Verge interview, says:
I think that they’re going to have their own profiles. They’re going to be creating content. People will be able to follow them if they want. You’ll be able to comment on their stuff. They may be able to comment on your stuff if you’re connected with them, and there will obviously be different logic and rules, but that’s one way that there’s going to be a lot more AI participants in the broader social construct. Then you get to the test that you mentioned, which is maybe the most abstract, which is just having the central Meta AI system directly generate content for you based on what we think is going to be interesting to you and putting that in your feed.
On that, I think there’s been this trend over time where the feeds started off as primarily and exclusively content for people you followed, your friends. I guess it was friends early on, then it kind of broadened out to, “Okay, you followed a set of friends and creators.” And then it got to a point where the algorithm was good enough where we’re actually showing you a lot of stuff that you’re not following directly because, in some ways, that’s a better way to show you more interesting stuff than only constraining it to things that you’ve chosen to follow.
I think the next logical jump on that is like, “Okay, we’re showing you content from your friends and creators that you’re following and creators that you’re not following that are generating interesting things. And you just add on to that, a layer of, “Okay, and we’re also going to show you content that’s generated by an AI system that might be something that you’re interested in.” Now, how big do any of these segments get? I think it’s really hard to know until you build them out over time, but it feels like it is a category in the world that’s going to exist, and how big it gets is kind of dependent on the execution and how good it is.
King Kaufman responded to Richard by parodying the above:
When we started our restaurant it was primarily that we’d bring you the food you ordered. I guess it was what you ordered early on and then it kind of broadened out to “OK, you ordered some things but we’re going to bring you some stuff that’s not selling.” And then it got to a point where the algorithm was good enough that we’re actually bring you stuff you don’t like and don’t want because, in some ways, that’s a better way to bring you more interesting stuff than only constraining it to things you like and want to eat.
I think the next logical step is for us to shit on a plate and bring it out to you.
He’s not that far off, and neither is Richard in his summary, which led me to the article in the first place.
People will crave human interactions, and while water-wasting programs like ChatGPT might be fun or give basic assurances, I don’t believe “AI”-generated content is where we want social media to go. Can you socialize with a machine? I don’t think I’m being a Luddite (in the colloquial sense) in saying that this isn’t desirous.
My response to Richard is that this was where Facebook would have headed anyway. The difference in 2017 was that the bot crap wasn’t plaguing our feeds. And:
Since Facebook lies about its user base numbers, maybe this is the only way for it to demonstrate it has any activity. And hopefully this is how it dies.
Maybe the Facebook brand will still be around, for those who want a sense of nostalgia. Zuckerberg talked about a deal with Essilor Luxottica, even buying a stake in it. But at some stage, with Facebook’s utility compromised, will people begin to see it for what it is?
One thing that made my departure from Facebook and Instagram very easy—admittedly my accounts still exist as do work ones—was the question, ‘Why am I making that **** rich?’
We should all be asking this, as a report confirms what many of us know: that Amazon, Tesla and Meta are among the world’s top companies undermining democracy.
From Michael Sainato in The Guardian:
Some of the world’s largest companies have been accused of undermining democracy across the world by financially backing far-right political movements, funding and exacerbating the climate crisis, and violating trade union rights and human rights in a report published on Monday by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC).
It’s not just tech companies: ExxonMobil, Blackstone, Vanguard, and Glencore are also among those named.
A few highlights:
Amazon has also funded far-right political groups’ efforts to undermine women’s rights and antitrust legislation, and its retail website has been used by hate groups to raise money and sell products …
The report cites Meta, the largest social media company in the world, for its vast role in permitting and enabling far-right propaganda and movements to use its platforms to grow members and garner support in the US and abroad.
The ITUC is pushing for an international binding treaty ‘to hold transnational corporations accountable under international human rights laws.’
I know that generally, this still isn’t enough to make some people give up Facebook, Instagram et al. (Heck, if genocide won’t get them off, then smashing democracy won’t.) I even know people, firmly on the left, who say that Facebook is a necessary evil in helping them organize their anti-fascist efforts.
Maybe they will leave if they have something with better utility that doesn’t have an evil corporation behind it—some cite the fediverse as being that saviour.
Or, the big companies commit something which everyday people find offensive, and there is a mass departure. It’s the Prince Andrew effect: having an account on Facebook should have a consequence akin to being friends with a convicted nonce.
You may also like
