That's won't happen. The mistake you're making is assuming that Facebook wants to "please everyone." It doesn't. It only cares about pleasing itself, and it does that through manipulating the algorithm to attempt to get its users to do what it wants.
Giving up control of the algorithm means giving up control of its user-products, and it's not going to do that.
> I'd rather see Ads about things I'm interested in than things I'm not interested in.
You're not going to see more ads about the things you're interested in, you're going to see ads that have a higher potential to manipulate you into commercially profitable behavior. There's a big but subtle difference between those things. You are definitely not going to see ads for your interests that bring you more joy but aren't easily monetizeable.
The coarseness of TV targeting meant people had more opportunity to assert their own priorities against the less effective manipulation.
Is your argument that if an ad works I am being manipulated, and if it doesn't work then I am not being manipulated?
I'm telling you right now that I don't mind seeing Ads on Instagram. They're great and I've found out about niche products that I otherwise would not have. If this means that small brands are able to rise up against the mega corps (Dollar Shave Club vs Gillette, as a classic example), then all the better for the market.
The other reason I don't mind is that they're visually appealing and seem to fit the Instagram ethos. Compare that to shitty banner Ads that disrupt the flow of content by being so different and so jarring in comparison.
Now, my opinion isn't meant to be generalized. Others may have a far different experience on Instagram (just because of how the product is designed to work). I'm sure there is someone who will chime in and say they hate Instagram Ads because they are completely ineffective. We could both be right in opposite directions since our feeds are probably very different.
If your opinion isn’t generalizable, it’s probably not useful in a discussion about civilization-wide issues, right? Moreover you’re only sharing your perception of how ads affect you, while others are pointing to known effects on whole populations. In essence you’re arguing against a system worth many billions with your own personal anecdote.
My opinion isn't generalizable because no two people have the same experience on Facebook and no two people use the product in the same way. For example, I only use Messenger. Some people only use the photo sharing features. Some people only use Marketplace to buy/sell things. Some people use newsfeed as their primary news source. Some people use all of these things in tandem.
So when people come into this discussion with strong opinions and try to impose their experience on everyone else, that's not useful nor reflective of reality.
What you're arguing is something very primal and not isolated to Facebook. You can make that argument about literally anything in this world and that's why I'm saying it's not useful. Cars have known effects on whole populations. Tax regulation has known effects on the behaviors of whole populations. I mean potato chips and similar snacks are engineered from the ground up to be addictive and have known effects on mass populations. Where do you draw the line for your argument? I chose to draw it at the bounds of my own personal experience with the product we're discussing.
It's OK to not like Facebook. It's also OK to like Facebook. But for me to impose my opinion on you would be misinformed because I don't know how you use it. It's an incredibly complex product with incredibly complex effects.
> someone suffering with depression had killed himself, and it was only a long time afterwards that any friends friends knew because Facebook hadn't been showing his posts.
> IIRC they looked through his feed and there had been basically cries for help, but no one had seem them because Facebook was prioritizing engagement and not personal content.
Don't worry! Facebook is working on an AI to detect such posts and refer the suicidal users to help! No need to bring his friends down with his negativity and decrease their engagement! /s
>> which are then captured and reported to HR for violating Google’s mores around civility or for offending white men.
> Rules requiring civility don't only apply towards white men
Welcome to the cutting edge of contemporary social justice culture, significant portions of which seem to want to invert and reorganize racial/gender power structures to put themselves at the top, rather than working to actually wash them away.
> It's very hard, probably impossible, to come up with a specific list. The list will either be incomplete (the trolls are cunning) or overly broad and spark anti-authoritarian feelings.
They should put up a big banner of the question the employees should be asking themselves about their work activities: "Is this good for the company?"
> the goal is to ensure they always keep product in stock, and the "holes" are a forcing function
This empty shelves thing is enough of a thing that it seems like it's not really working.
And empty shelves sends such a terrible message to everybody who encounters them that I question the wisdom of who picked that as a "forcing function." Whenever I see that in a store, it just reeks of failure and decay.
I'd prefer they just put up a sign saying "sorry, we're out of bananas" and putting something else there in the interim. The employees are right: empty shelves look sloppy. Too many and the place even looks like it's going out of business.
> it's up to individuals to decide what their own identity is. When an individual identifies as one thing...
That's actually not true and not workable. A very obvious example is a criminal who identifies as a good, upstanding person.
IMHO there are actually two kinds of identity (at least). They are separate things, but related and often confused.
1. Self-identity: the identity that someone applies to themselves based on their own thoughts and aspirations. This is very closely related to one's inner life. This is the identity that you're referring to above.
2. Applied-identity (for lack of a better term): the identity that each person applies to someone else based on their own thoughts, beliefs, and experiences with that person. Someone's reputation is an example.
If you try to force everyone's applied-identity of you to conform with your self-identity, that's also a form of oppression. What and how they think of you is their own business.
