Tag Archives: facebook

Facebook’s metaverse is insignificant

Reading Time: 3 minutes

The idea behind Facebook’s Metaverse is brilliant. It truly is. But I find it incredibly difficult to believe hordes of people would buy Facebook’s headsets with a 1080p camera and stereo mic. Personally, I wouldn’t like to meet with people wearing any data harvesters from Facebook on their bodies. By wearing Facebook’s products, you surrender your privacy. Simple as that.

I really don’t want to talk about Zuckerberg’s latest project because I only give him free publicity by doing so. But it’s essential to make my point.

Metaverse is ambitious. In fact, too ambitious. Facebook believes they can build the whole world right away, and to be fair, they are delusional. Let’s assume Metaverse exists for a second, though. The problem of this digital world is three-fold. Firstly, as a developer, you don’t know anything about writing programs that would run on Metaverse. Secondly, the programming language lacks libraries and frameworks to enable developers to create apps efficiently. Thirdly, there’s no user base with devices. Zero. Facebook sold like a dozen oculus sets, but that’s it.

In short, sure, the hype factor is here, and everyone is excited about Metaverse. But still, without any of the above three aspects, Metaverse doesn’t exist outside of Facebook’s marketing team.

On the other side of the “spectrum” are Apple, Google, and Microsoft. Apple is told to release its next “big thing” in the next year. The next big thing will be either a VR or AR headset. No matter which headset Apple will introduce, Apple’s digital world will outgrow Facebook’s Metaverse from day one.

source: The Wall Street Journal

The graph above illustrates the projection of sales of AR glasses in the upcoming three years. As you can see, it’s forecasted that Apple will sell almost five times more units than Facebook will, only in the first year. What’s more, in 2025, Facebook is predicted to be the second smallest player on the market.

The reason Apple will destroy the competition lies in the above three factors that are absolutely essential for creating the digital universe. And Apple, one year before the predicted release of AR glasses, already fulfills 3 out of 3 factors.

Around six years ago, Apple introduced its new programming language – check. In 2017, they released ARKit – a set of APIs, libraries, and frameworks for working with AR objects and AR realties – check. And lastly, Apple has been building a user base since the day iPhone launched (now standing at whopping 900 million active iPhones) – check. And a great majority of the active iPhones can run AR apps.

That gives Apple essentially all there is to dominate the AR market overnight by simply pushing a software update. What’s more, the developer base already knows the process of developing AR apps for iOS.

Now let’s talk about another critical aspect – computing power. To run AR programs, you need enormous computing power. The hardware must run tens of billions of operations every second, fit in a small box, and be highly energy-efficient (meaning how many operations you can make out of a battery charge). And wow, what a surprise! For more than ten years, Apple has been developing precisely these kinds of chips. The ones that are both extremely energy efficient and have unmatched performance. This fact already creates a tremendously significant competitive advantage over Facebook.

Another significant aspect of AR is the number of use cases. With Facebook’s oculus, you can play games, call friends and watch some videos on youtube. I’d say that’s pretty limited. Thus, to survive, Metaverse will need to extend capabilities that will take time to develop. Apple will offer many more, besides the above use cases, such as maps, music, tv, podcasts, and fitness services from the launch day. So, the services that Apple offers are much more wide-ranging than Facebook’s offering.

Closing Thoughts

This relatively long analysis was supposed to show you why Facebook’s Metaverse has no significant future and how their competition will relegate them to the background in the upcoming years. Facebook’s failure will lie in almost every area of creating the digital world, starting with the user base with digital-world-running capabilities, going through chip performance, and ending on limited use cases.

Of course, the subject of the digital world becomes much more complex when we start discussing the effects of living on the internet on the human psyche. For now, though, I wanted to focus only on the technological aspects of this matter.

Sources

  1. https://apple.news/AtYXmEPvoR-qtFfTxGb9v0g
  2. https://www.aboveavalon.com/notes/2019/5/30/apples-billion-users
  3. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-10-29/meta-needs-to-change-more-than-just-its-name
Tagged , , , ,

This is the end of Facebook?

Reading Time: 3 minutes
fot. DADO RUVIC

According to statistics provided by Facebook this year, their “website currently has over 2.8 billion users per month, of which 1.9 billion use the website every day”, which undoubtedly shows how huge the global success of the website is. Along with tremendous success, there are also many challenges of good and bad fame.

Not more than 17 years ago, when Facebook began to be popularized, everyone was delighted with the possibilities social media offer. The following years were a good time for Facebook and other social networks, which were gaining popularity among people of all ages, every corner of the world and with various interests.

In the beginning, it was a hit, every day users shared their thoughts, photos from travels and everyday life, shared songs, quotes, commented and liked posts with others. Over time, users stopped engaging in creating their profiles, and then increasingly stopped wasting time scrolling. More and more often we can hear about detox from social media, setting a time limit for their use or completely uninstalling them. Growing negative feedback due to scandals, data leaks for Cambridge Analytica to prepare political campaigns, and the publication of algorithms by Frances Haugen showing how the company increases profits at the expense of society by driving hate and arguments or failure to stop the dissemination of material from the Christchurch terrorist attack, has sufficiently rejected users.

After all the situations that put Facebook in a bad light, at the end of October this year, Mark Zuckerberg announced that the platform was renamed “Meta” in order to seemingly distract users and start a new chapter. This name comes from the concept of Metaverse called “new internet”, the idea of which is to build a virtual world connecting millions of users in 3D technology. The idea may seem distant when it comes to an uprising, but the work on its creation has already started and a huge amount of money and experts have been invested in it.

https://www.benchmark.pl/aktualnosci/meta-jest-wyjatkowo-uzalezniajaca-francis-haugen-krytykuje-meta.html

With the implementation of the idea, the first concerns also arise. After so many mistakes and the instigation of toxic relationships on the platform, how would users trust Facebook’s next project? Despite promises to create a safer place for the community, it is almost impossible to control the behaviour of such a large community. Deputy chairman of Augmented and Virtual Reality at Meta, Andrew Bosworth warns, saying:

“virtual reality can often be a “toxic environment” especially for women and minorities”

Will the name change and the new Meta idea change the image of Facebook? Will they manage to create a place friendly to everyone and change the users’ opinion about them? Is it just “sweeping the problem under the rug”? Each of us will have the opportunity to answer these questions, after implementing the idea soon.

https://whatsnext.pl/545095-metaverse-facebook-wirtualny-swiat-internet/

Sources:
https://www.whysosocial.pl/uzytkownicy-social-media-w-polsce-i-na-swiecie/

https://www.komputerswiat.pl/artykuly/redakcyjne/dzien-sadu-dla-social-media-jest-blisko-jak-bedzie-wygladala-post-rzeczywistosc-gdy/qpn3qfz

https://www.komputerswiat.pl/aktualnosci/internet/byla-pracowniczka-facebooka-algorytmy-nakrecaly-hejt-dla-wiekszych-zyskow-gigant/hprskxm

https://www.ft.com/content/d72145b7-5e44-446a-819c-51d67c5471cf
https://www.euractiv.pl/section/gospodarka/news/facebook-ukarany-za-skandal-z-cambridge-analytica/




Tagged , ,

Taking action against Facebook

Reading Time: 2 minutes

In my last entry, I have highlighted the most pressing regulatory and governance issues in today’s digital markets. That piece was primarily focused on threats to privacy, consumer welfare and fair competition. Since then, the US Federal Trade Comission (antitrust body) has sued Facebook for “illegal monopolization”[1], taking into account most of the concerns addressed in my previous piece. Therefore, I believe it is worth looking at the FTC lawsuit against Facebook more closely.

FTC sues Facebook for illegal monopolization – Instagram and WhatsApp at  risk - SlashGear

Generally speaking, it is relatively rare for the US authorities to take action against tech giants. The reasons are twofold. Most importantly, US and its Silicon Valley is a technological hub, where major companies such as Amazon, Google, Facebook are headquartered. Thus, in the recent years it was European Commission that appeared to be more “proactive” in regulating tech industry. Secondly and more generally, the US system of governance is rooted in free-market and ‘self-regulation’ with little State intervention. 

It is precisely for these reasons why the lawsuit is so surprising, interesting and yet – very much overdue. The essence of the FTC’s claim is that Facebook is “illegally maintaining its personal social networking monopoly through a years-long course of anticompetitive conduct”[2]. In simple terms, the US competition authority alleges that the company has eliminated nascent competitors by simply buying them. The best example would be Facebook’s acquisition of WhatsApp, a service that until then has prided itself in high levels of privacy and encryption; employed less than 20 people and made no profit[3]. Despite this, Facebook decided to purchase WhatsApp for a striking $19 billion, when it was struggling with its own messaging app (Messenger)[4]. Interestingly, when the merger was taking place – it was unconditionally cleared by the FTC. European Commission has investigated its potential anticompetitive effects, but eventually cleared it. Soon after the acquisition, WhatsApp has published new policy and subsequently, downgraded its privacy standards. 

Another up-and-coming rival that was purchased by Facebook and is at the center of FTC’s lawsuit is Instagram. Overall, the US competition authority has characterized Facebook’s conduct over the years as “harmful to competition, leaving consumers with few choices for personal social networking and depriving advertisers of the benefits of competition”[5].

The FTC’s lawsuit foreshadows greater scrutiny of tech giants by competition authorities in the coming years. It remains to be seen how the regulators and law enforcement worldwide catch up with the rapid development of technology. On one hand, fair competition and consumer welfare are of utmost importance, but on the other – regulators must be careful not to squelch innovation. 


Sources:

[1] Federal Trade Commission, ‘FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization’, 9 December 2020, p.1

[2] Ibid, p.4

[3] Wired, ‘WhatsApp: The inside story’, 19 February 2014 

[4] The Conversation. ‘WhatsApp bought for $19billion, what do its employees get?’, 20 February 2014

[5] Federal Trade Commission, 9 December 2020, p.6

Tagged

How facial recognition works

Reading Time: 3 minutesNowadays facial recognition systems become more and more popular. They are used by many companies, as well as certain countries as a way of detecting citizens. But how does facial recognition work?

Facial recognition is defined as a biometric software application with the ability of identifying a person by comparing their facial structure and patterns with data stored in a database. Every person has a unique facial pattern, and when other humans may not be able to easily distinguish it, software applications are capable of doing it within seconds. There are four steps that the software uses to recognise someone’s face.

Firstly, the camera will detect and recognize a face of a certain person, either when the person is alone, or in a crowd. Before there was a problem that occurred when the camera was not pointed directly at the front of the face, but nowadays the algorithm learned to deal with that issue.

Secondly, the photo of the face is taken and analysed. The software analyses over 80 facial features that differ from person to person, which are referred to as nodal points. Some of those features are obvious, such as shape of the eyes, but some of them are a lot more difficult to distinguish, for example distance between the eyes, shape and height of the cheekbones, or width of the nose.

After that, the analysis of the face is turned into lines of code and mathematical formulas. The features become numbers, and the code is referred to as faceprint. Just like with thumbprint, each person has unique faceprint.

After the code is obtained, it is compared with database of faceprints. The databases have millions of photos with necessary information. For example, the FBI has access to over 641 million photos. That includes 21 state databases, such as DMV, which are state level agencies that administer vehicle registration and driver licencing. The FBI also has access to Facebook’s databases, which store millions of photos tagged with person’s name. The software identifies matching information with data provided by databases. It then returns the match with attached personal information, such as name, age, address or even friends and family.

So where is facial recognition used? As you can probably imagine, there are great advantages of using the software in security purposes. Many airports all around the world use it to identify potential dangers. Facial recognition is also used in device security. Many new phones offer a possibility to use your face to unlock the phone, instead of using a pin code or symbol.

As you can probably guess, there are many ongoing controversies concerning facial recognition. Some people claim that it is an invasion of privacy. Other claim that it doesn’t work properly or can be easily deceived. The main concern surrounding facial recognition is that the data gathered by the software and stored in databases might get leaked or simply hacked and used with malicious intent.

In conclusion, facial recognition technology brings lots of possibilities in terms of safety and security, as long as the data itself stays secure. The possible misuses of such data are endless and might cause a serious danger in the future.

References:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facial_recognition_system

www.pandasecurity.com/mediacenter/panda-security/facial-recognition-technology/

Tagged , , ,

Facebook pays teens to install an app that spies on them

Reading Time: 2 minutes

Once again Facebook finds itself in a position no company should end up in. It was reported that they have been secretly paying teenagers and adults to install a VPN  app that allows them to collect all the data on how they use their smartphones.

“Project Atlas”

It all began in 2016 with the so-called “Facebook Research” app where some of the users were being paid 20$ a month for permission to gather all kinds of data from their device. It enables Facebook to view web searches, location information, private messages on social media apps, and a lot of other activities. What is more, Facebook even asked users to screenshot their Amazon order history page. To mask its involvement in everything, the program is said to be administered through beta testing services like Applause, BetaBound and uTest and is referred to as “Project Atlas.”

Violation of policies

The app was also available on iOS, however, since it can decrypt and analyzy users phone activity it was a violation of Apple policy. After the report on the app, Facebook stated that it would shut down the iOS version of its app. In this case, Apple was quicker and had already blocked the “Facebook Research”  on their system.

“We designed our Enterprise Developer Program solely for the internal distribution of apps within an organization. Facebook has been using their membership to distribute a data-collecting app to consumers, which is a clear breach of their agreement with Apple. Any developer using their enterprise certificates to distribute apps to consumers will have their certificates revoked, which is what we did in this case to protect our users and their data.” – statement from Apple spokesperson

Not a bright future

Facebook has had a rough couple of years now, especially after it was revealed that the data of 87 million users had been improperly shared with political consultancy Cambridge Analytica. It is also scandalous, that ads for this app that ran on Instagram and Snapchat specifically asked for participants to be 13 to 17 years old. Who knows what we will find out in the future, but if you have any thoughts what can also be wrong with Facebook feel free to share it in the comments.

 

Sources:

  1. https://www.marketplace.org/2019/01/30/tech/facebook-has-been-paying-teens-data-what-does-mean-calls-regulate-company
  2. https://techcrunch.com/2019/01/29/facebook-project-atlas/
  3. https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2019/1/30/18203803/facebook-research-vpn-minors-data-access-apple
  4. https://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/3070119/facebook-has-been-paying-teens-for-unfettered-access-to-their-data
  5. https://www.techzim.co.zw/2019/01/facebook-was-paying-teens-20-month-for-all-of-their-data/

 

Tagged , , ,

Facebook sells its users’ data!

Reading Time: 3 minutes

The fact that web portals manage the data of their users without their awareness is known not from today, but the way in which Facebook does, it’s just beyond comprehension.

The New York Times is showing the truth.

In connection with recent reports from The New York Times, we read that Facebook sold access to various types of “sensitive data” about its users to such companies as: Amazon, Microsoft, Apple, Yahoo, Netflix, Spotify. Netflix and Spotify had even access to private correspondence. In most cases, the data obtained by the companies were to help in the selection and positioning of advertisements for users of the said portals. It does not change the fact that through the sale of these data Facebook broke an agreement from 2011 with the American Federal Trade Commission, which clearly states that Facebook can share user data only if it is given accurate and explicit consent.

Companies answer the allegations!

All companies mentioned in the report of The New York Times issued a special statement. One of them is the statement of the Netflix press office regarding access to private correspondence of Facebook users. We read in it about:

“Over the years, we’ve tested various solutions to help Netflix understand the wider community, one of which was a feature introduced in 2014 that allowed site users to recommend their favourite series and movies to their Facebook friends via Messenger or a Netflix account. It has not been that popular as we assumed, which is why we decided to remove it in 2015. At no time did we have access to private messages of Facebook users, or we asked for the possibility of receiving them. “ – Netflix press office says.

The New York Times was really well prepared for this investigation.

It doesn’t change the fact, that The New York Times interviewed more than 60 people, including former employees of Facebook and its partners, former government officials and privacy advocates. Thanks to that we can be sure that Facebook did something illegal and now tries to bury the truth.

“The Times also reviewed more than 270 pages of Facebook’s internal documents and performed technical tests and analysis to monitor what information was being passed between Facebook and partner devices and websites.” – as The New York Times said.

What is my view about this situation?

In my opinion, companies that have access to sensitive data of their users should make every effort to ensure that this data does not leak. In this way, eg. Apple, which extremely highly appreciates the safety of data users of their products and whenever they commit some “mistakes at work”, they plead the guilty and try to repair the whole situation (eg. icloud leaks affair).

Facebook approaches similar situations in a different way, which tries to whitewash the truth and pass the buck on others. The Cambridge Analytica scandal is a perfect example of frauds and deceptions, thanks to which we learned how Facebook can influence election results in one of the most powerful countries in the world, such as the USA is. That sort of stuff is not conducive to peace but exacerbates the conflict on the Facebook and Users relations.

Counter-argument to this whole situation is the fact that the majority of Facebook users do not care about privacy policy. They accept all consents without prior reading. They do not follow the basic security rules on the Internet. They share their private lives via Twitter, Instagram, YouTube etc. For this reason, it can be assumed that such users agree to full surveillance, which is not said to be bad. If we have nothing to hide, why should we be disturbed by the fact that someone can earn from it. I believe that if there is already such a situation, it would be great if the company / person who earns money on their users, would inform them about everything and admit theirs guilt when they fails.

Sources:

https://cnn.it/2LJ9ZYd
https://cnn.it/2EUlpGY

Photos:

https://bit.ly/2SuobXh
https://bit.ly/2EZFLiM
https://bit.ly/2CH3Zfx

author: Michał Żelazo

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

Reading Time: 4 minutes

Just before Christmas, New York Times surprised us with a ‘wonderful’ gift. A report that clearly shows that Facebook has been sharing our private conversations with major companies like Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Spotify, Netflix, Yahoo and many more.

Discovered report included information of over 200 pages of leaked documents, which contained the data about secret partnerships with third-party companies, that enabled them to allegedly read, compose or even delete the messages. Regarding them as ‘partners’, allowed them to not be controlled with usual privacy regulations. The number of companies that was discovered, when it comes to that level of clearance was estimated to be over 150.

“The deals, the oldest of which date to 2010, were all active in 2017,” The Times reported. “Some were still in effect this year.”

Major companies that were included in the document started addressing the issue after the controversy bursted out. Moreover, all of the companies are trying to separate themselves from the scandal.

Let’s start with something ‘less dramatic’. I will give you a simple example of how it worked. In the report, New York Times stated that Facebook gave Apple access user’s contacts and calendar, even if the sharing option was switched off. This way they could access the useful data that they wouldn’t have otherwise. Apple publicly denied these allegations and declared that they had never requested that kind access and never used it.

What also probably will warm your heart is the fact, that one the biggest company in the world, Amazon, is also connected with this controversy. They retrieved user’s name’s and contact information from Facebook database. Organisation confirmed getting it all, but didn’t reveal why and what for they used the data.

The more frightening case is with SpotifyNetflix and The Royal Bank of Canada. They have been granted a full access to user’s information and even private conversations. Furthermore, these companies were allegedly able to read, compose and even delete messages. All of the organisations stated that they were not aware of this kind of ‘unique’ access and they were not involved in this matter.

“Over the years we have tried various ways to make Netflix more social,” a Netflix spokesperson told Business Insider. “One example of this was a feature we launched in 2014 that enabled members to recommend TV shows and movies to their Facebook friends via Messenger or Netflix. It was never that popular so we shut the feature down in 2015. At no time did we access people’s private messages on Facebook, or ask for the ability to do so.” —Netflix (@netflix ; Twitter)

“Spotify’s integration with Facebook has always been about sharing and discovering music and podcasts,” Spotify told Business Insider in an emailed statement. “Spotify cannot read users’ private Facebook inbox messages across any of our current integrations. Previously, when users shared music from Spotify, they could add on text that was visible to Spotify. This has since been discontinued. We have no evidence that Spotify ever accessed users’ private Facebook messages.” – Spotify (@Spotify ; Twitter)

The Royal Bank of Canada “disputed that the bank had any such access,” The Times wrote.

The problem lies in the law, because according to the 2011 Federal Trade Commission consent decree, Facebook isn’t violating any laws. Why you may ask? Well they do not need your permission to share your information to other companies, because they are partners, so they are sort of ‘cooperating’. This is a major issue and we can see that in many areas of law with many other cases. Countries and their regulations just can’t keep up with the growth of technological world. The whole process of creating new rules is just too slow. That’s something we should focus on looking forward.

As a result of this controversy, Facebook tried to defend themselves.

“Facebook’s partners don’t get to ignore people’s privacy settings, and it’s wrong to suggest that they do,” Steve Satterfield, Facebook’s director of privacy and public policy, said in their statement for Business Insider. “Over the years, we’ve partnered with other companies so people can use Facebook on devices and platforms that we don’t support ourselves. Unlike a game, streaming music service, or other third-party app, which offer experiences that are independent of Facebook, these partners can only offer specific Facebook features and are unable to use information for independent purposes.”

Facebook has encountered a lot of controversies lately, especially when it comes to the sensitive data they have been gathering from years from their users. They had many leaks, breaches, even the CEO, Mark Zuckerberg had to testify to USA Congress earlier this year.  Taking all of that into consideration, do you still want to use Facebook? 

Reference list:

  1. Gray, S. (2018, December 19). Bombshell report shows Facebook let companies like Spotify and Netflix read private messages. https://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-let-major-tech-companies-feast-on-user-data-2018-12?IR=T
  2. Keach, S. (2018, December 19). Facebook secretly let Netflix and Spotify read your PRIVATE messages – as tech giants rocked by bombshell report. https://www.thesun.co.uk/tech/8013861/facebook-netflix-spotify-private-messages-data-scandal/
  3. Muskit, S. (2015, July 14). What Does Happiness Mean To Mark Zuckerberg?. https://lifebeyondnumbers.com/happiness-mark-zuckerberg/
  4. Zuver, J. (2018, July 26). Drew And Mike – July 26, 2018. https://drewandmikepodcast.com/drew-and-mike-july-26-2018/

Facebook shares our private conversations with other companies?

Tagged , , , , ,

Digital taxes toughening

Reading Time: 2 minutes         

Amazon, Google and Facebook will pay more taxes if EU implements new digital tax propolsals.

As we all know, currently tax system is not perfect, because it has lots of pitfalls and such big corporations as Google, Uber, Amazon, ect. use it without shame. For instance, Facebook, is the largest social networking service in the world, earned £1.3bn in UK and paid only £15.8m in tax in 2017. That is even less then 1% of their revenue. So that, to the opinion of EU commision the tax system must be revised.

They suggest implementing taxes based on not only staff presence, but also company’s “digital presence”. The Guardian says that “digital presence” means that a company has more than 100 000 users or more than £6m income per year, or it will have more than 3000 signed contracts. Moreover, thay want to take 3% out of selling of advertising space to companies that have more than €750m revenues worldwide and €50m in EU.

I think it is a good trend for two main reasons:

  1. The taxes will generate €5bn for EU every year.
  2. It will make things right, because traditional companies pay 23.2% from their revenue compared with avarege 9.5% of digital ones.

As for me, I totally agree with EU and think that it is not fair when such enterprises make thousands of millions dollars and pay less than traditional corporations. Despite the fact, that they don’t have physical presence, they still make signficant impact on it via huge communication flow. Digital space must be controlled, because it can influence people’s behaviour and purchase intent that can bring additional money to traditional corporations that are physically exist.

 

 

Tagged , , , ,

Haters and fake convent provided via social media.

Reading Time: 2 minutes 

Dear Readers

Today in the wake of the huge popularity of sharing the content via social media, when people felt much more anonymous, they basically means as much as their signs, emoji or nicknames, which identify them. It caused that they are feeling much more free in providing their posts, which very often are offended or fake. Facebook representative still tries to reduce this kind of problem, but its scale is huge and difficult to control. They mostly concentrated on fake ads, which sometimes we can notice during opening fb web or in the message folder called “ different”. As written in techcrunch.com Mark Zuckerberg said that the fake news are in the minority of the general content provided via Facebook, but as we can easily notice false information takes place pretty often. I am one of the moderator of the music band fun-page, where people are able to provide their opinions, comments, adds. What I observed is the fact, that minimum once per week what happened is sharing the negative, even as I mentioned above offended and fake comments. 99 percent of them are sending from the unreal accounts, which used strange names or pics taken from google- graphs or someone’s Instagram ,what is basically under the law. How we are fighting with that?

Well, the solution is pretty simple and for now that is the only solution, which is coming into my minds. It  is basically blocking, cause every critiques, (of course best if it is constructive criticism) are welcomed, but the curse or racist comments are not allowed. Probably many of us met, with this kind of negative experience in our life, especially if we are giving something publicly.

You re more than welcome to share Your feedback and opinions, how You are dealing with haters in the social media, or other platforms, where You re sharing Your content, ideas of simply Yourself.

If You are more interested in the issue, how Facebook currently is dealing with that staff check the link

https://techcrunch.com/2016/11/19/zuckerberg-reveals-plans-to-address-misinformation-on-facebook/

Thanks for reading and see You soon.

Magda Skorodzień.

Tagged , , , , , ,

Facebook’s new algorithm is about to put end to clickbait

Reading Time: 2 minutes 

ClickbaitEvery time You open Facebook News Feed you’re likely to see many clickbait articles with headlines like: “I thought I wanted a baby someday, but after watching this … yikes.”;” You’ll NEVER believe which two stars got into a fight on the red carpet last night!! CLICK to find out which starlet was fighting over!! à”. Those headlines are annoying and articles they direct to almost never meet our expectations from the time we clicked on them in a Facebook feed.

The great thing is that Facebook took notice of it and for the second time tried to fight with them. Previously the algorithm was searching for distribution of posts that led people to click on them and afterwards very quickly come back to News Feed without liking the page. This didn’t help much as these type of posts were still showing quite regularly.  It was easy to overcome the algorithm by creating a new page or even new post which had some time until it was stopped.

The new algorithm is no longer searching for symptoms as it focuses on the source of the problem. This allows it to work much faster and stop post before anyone will click on it. To achieve it Facebook team manually classified tens of thousands of clickbait like headlines in order to teach algorithm how they are composed and be able to distinguish them from content shared by legitimate publishers.

The system identifies which post is a clickbait and from to which domain it is linked to. Thanks to it punished are both posts itself but also a publisher. Pages and headlines that often use clickbait headlines will appear lower in News Feed.

In order to protect algorithm from reverse engineering and eventually overcoming it, Facebook will not reveal guidelines on how it is defining clickbait. It should motivate legitimate publishers to use headlines which do not withhold information allowing to understand what is the content of an article.

I hope it will motivate legitimate publishers to name their articles correctly as I saw that even popular new sites are starting to use headlines which do not reveal the content only luring us to click on them in order to find out what it really is about.

How do you like the new algorithm? Do you think it will be successful and long-lasting change?

 

Sources:

http://newsroom.fb.com/news/2016/08/news-feed-fyi-further-reducing-clickbait-in-feed/

https://techcrunch.com/2016/08/04/facebook-clickbait/

http://businessinsider.com.pl/international/facebook-is-changing-its-news-feed-to-try-to-stomp-out-clickbait/zp6g5n0

Tagged , ,