Sentinel & Enterprise

Changing to a chronologi­cal feed wouldn’t fix Facebook

- By Cathy O'neil Cathy O’neil is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist. She is a mathematic­ian who has worked as a professor, hedge-fund analyst and data scientist. Distribute­d by Tribune Content Agency.

There’s been a lot of discussion, since the Facebook Files were leaked, about how to repair the social media platform. A lot of this talk centers on how algorithms manipulate the feeds, and how we users are profiled and fed exactly the content that arouses us to fits of hatred, conspiracy theorizing and even domestic terrorism.

This is true and deeply problemati­c. But the fix offered by many, including some people in Congress, which is to offer users their content in chronologi­cal order, won’t work. Here’s why.

First, consider Twitter. Chronologi­cal feeds are not exactly the norm there, either, because there’s an algorithm at work (which has recently been seen to amplify right wing U.S. news sources). But at least on Twitter, a chronologi­cal feed of people we follow wouldn’t be utterly jarring. Indeed, for 1% of Twitter users the feed has always been simply chronologi­cal.

Chronologi­cal feeds are tolerable on Twitter simply because, on this platform, we choose the people we want to follow.

Now consider Facebook. It’s grown up over the past decade and a half on the concept of reciprocal friendship­s, which has meant we don’t necessaril­y want to listen in on the conversati­ons of most of the people in our own networks. The algorithm has developed alongside this network and has learned which conversati­ons we actually want to be a part of — or, more appropriat­ely, with whom we’d prefer to argue. It convenient­ly prunes away the second cousin’s friend from high school we once met at a party and somehow befriended.

The reality is, we don’t want to hear from most of the “friends” in our networks, and if offered the choice between incredibly boring cat/baby pictures from people we don’t want to know and provocativ­e or even outrageous content from suspicious sources, we will opt for the latter.

It would be different, to be clear, if Facebook had always offered only chronologi­cal feeds. Then we would have curated our friends more closely all this time. But it didn’t, we didn’t, and the result is that this particular path-dependent outcome is feasible only with an active algorithm.

By the way, I’m not offering an alternativ­e to “chronologi­cal feed” to fix Facebook. That’s not because I’m withholdin­g; I just don’t think there is one. The only reasonable approach is to admit what Mark Zuckerberg doesn’t want to: Facebook is a destructiv­e force that causes real harm and has no easy fix.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States