Top
Best
New

Posted by robtherobber 1 hour ago

Facebook is paying controversial creators to produce rage-bait content(www.abc.net.au)
74 points | 26 commentspage 2
fergie 1 hour ago|
The irony here is that ABC is the platfrom doing the rage-baiting.
juleiie 44 minutes ago||
When will people learn that rage bait content thrives thanks to people who are so delicate and emotional that they get unhealthily enraged at such content?

Stop raging on the internet and the rage bait content will disappear overnight.

Stop buying oil, chasing newest phones, luxuries, and the climate will get better overnight.

It’s all on the consumers, contrary to Redditor belief that the big corporations are at fault, it’s simply the matter of demand and thus supply. Not the other way around.

Take accountability. I know nowadays it is very unpopular to take accountability but this is the first step to make world better place. You can only change your own habits.

pjc50 28 minutes ago||
> You can only change your own habits

Rather like smoking, I can only change my own habits (have never smoked) but that won't prevent me from being harmed by other people's habits.

Even if I don't use Facebook, I can be harmed by Facebook voters.

BoxOfRain 27 minutes ago|||
Out of interest, would you have made this argument with respect to Big Tobacco back in the day? In my view surveillance-based behavioural recommendation engines belong very much in the same category.
juleiie 22 minutes ago||
I would say that initiative to combat big tobacco didn’t emerge out of some bored statesman.

It was what people voted for and endorsed, one way or another. Grassroots activists and various bottom top endeavours.

If you expect somebody else to solve your problems then nothing will ever happen.

Levitating 38 minutes ago|||
Meta could help the situation, for instance by providing fact-checking tools and banning rage-bait creators.

Instead they have removed those tools and are paying these creators. So it's not just consumers to blame here.

juleiie 31 minutes ago||
Well, you use their platform and thus line their pockets. Why? Because it’s convenient, it’s lazy and “free” and you sold your soul and data for far too cheap.

If the population cannot behave in their best interest then the whole western civ gets Darwin Award and I am fine with that honestly.

And it is actually happening in real time in almost all categories from fertility rate to losing psychological warfare.

Levitating 21 minutes ago||
But we don't all use Facebook, Facebook found its niche of tech-illiterate people to abuse.

The population is a wide demographic and it would be nice if companies didn't try to exploit parts of it.

juleiie 12 minutes ago||
You can say a lot of words on any given topic on a niche technology board but what does that change?

What can you do to change this situation? If there is a want then there are opportunities to make a difference.

Look, I don’t expect everyone to go into politics or become some kind of chief activist but I would love for people to be more aware of their collective strength and power.

To dispel the too pervasive illusion of powerlessness and false narrative (I wonder where that came from btw) about lack of agency.

Today’s divisions (I wonder where that came from) make it harder to group up with people when everyone is so split and radical and polarised (I wonder where that came from)

kalaksi 35 minutes ago||
I'm not holding my breath for masses to become informed, rational, responsible and balanced overall.

And why would the responsibility lie solely on consumers to act perfectly

shevy-java 1 hour ago||
Now people understand why Suckerberg is called Suckerberg.

Those greedy billionaires also keep on having ties to right wing nuts. Let's not forget Melon Usk with his suspicious right-arm-raising gestures (having done so twice, which is quite strange when you do the same gesture twice in a row - I mean there can be no doubt about this if you do it twice; twice is an accident?).

efilife 1 hour ago|
Clickbait. Title makes it sound like they pay them directly to promote the platform, but they get paid through facebook content monetisation program
chinathrow 1 hour ago||
Not Clickbait.

If you provide both:

a) a service to earn money from content

b) an algo promoting those videos

then yes, IMHO they pay them directly for the content produced.

pizza234 37 minutes ago||
There is a distinction between:

- Meta is commissioning or sponsoring rage-bait

- Controversial creators are earning money through Facebook's content monetization program

The title is ambiguous (at first, I thought it was the first case), and that's where the clickbait lies.

No doubt that also the second case is a serious problem, but that's orthogonal to the ambiguity of the title.

hhjinks 5 minutes ago||
The distinction disappears when Facebook incentivizes the creation of the rage-bait content by prioritizing it in their algorithm. They can, at any moment, de-rank rage-bait, but they don't. That clearly signals "make rage-bait for our platform and we'll pay you."

Contrast it with something like Elsagate. Google actioned the offending creators and attempted to deprioritize the kind of content that caused the controversy. Facebook would do the same if they didn't condone rage-bait.

myaccountonhn 1 hour ago||
So they do directly pay them?