rather than play fantasy-despot regulator
I am sick of reading about people who want to regulate Facebook. You didn’t come up with the idea. You didn’t build the business. Now that it’s here, who the heck do you think you are telling them how to run it?
It’s not that I’m happy with Facebook. Far from it. But to me, the best way to fix it would be to come up with something better. I figure that if we really do come up with a much better way of running a social network, then some entrepreneur will be able to make a success out of our idea.
I’ll start with my pet peeve about Facebook.
The Stupid Algorithm
My problem with the infamous algorithm that governs the news feed is not that it’s mysterious or that it’s malicious. My problem is that it’s just unforgivably stupid.
— It shares jokes from friends who don’t have my sense of humor.
— It shares political opinions from friends who aren’t insightful.
— It shares life events from friends with whom I have no personal relationship.
— It gives me frequent updates from people who I only want to hear about occasionally.
— It misses updates from people who I really care about.
Toward a smarter algorithm
With our Facebook competitor, our algorithm will give users much better control. When John and I link up as friends, I will be able to indicate how often I want to hear various sorts of news from John. As John and I link up, I will consider a list of topics:
— items that pertain to me as an individual, such as comments on my writing
— jokes or amusing videos
— food
— entertainment
— news related to a specific hobby or interest (one of the interests could be politics, or a particular sub-field of politics; I would have specified my interests when I created my basic profile)
— news related to work
— news related to friends we have in common
— news related to an affiliation we have in common, such as a previous school or employer
— major life events
— minor life events
— etc.
For each category, I can say whether I want to see what John posts in that category.
Whenever anyone posts something, they check boxes indicating what it pertains to. The algorithm feeds me news by comparing what gets checked by my friends with what I have said I am interested in from those friends. I think that this would eliminate much of the stupidity that bothers me about the current algorithm.
Suppose that John posts something really interesting about politics, but I have turned politics off as a category for John. It still might get through to me if it gets shared through the network to another one of my friends whose political posts interest me. Otherwise, I might never see the post. I am willing to take that chance.
An alternative implementation
It might not be optimal for us to impose a fixed set of categories on users. An alternative would be to let the categories emerge organically through a hashtag mechanism.
With this approach, we do not start with a pre-determined set of categories. Instead, categories emerge from hashtags as people write posts. So if I write a post about folk dancing activities, I include a hash tag “#folkdancing.” Then, when you connect with me as a friend, you look at the list of all the hash tags that I have used. You can decide whether going forward you want to see my #folkdancing posts or not. Instead, you might only want to see my #economics posts.
I can imagine that it would be easier to use fixed categories to start with. But over time, the hashtag approach would turn out to be more robust.
The Business Model
As plenty of commentators have pointed out, Facebook’s reliance on advertising creates adverse incentives. When Facebook and its advertisers study your behavior, it is not with the goal of improving your experience as a user. The goal is to make ads more effective.
Instead, our competitor will use a “freemium” model. Our money will come from subscriptions, but anyone may join for free. People who do not subscribe will have limits on the features that they may use. For example, they might be limited to, say, 5 posts per month.
With the “freemium” model, our incentive is to create the best experience possible for subscribers, while making our service at least minimally attractive to everyone. Unlike the advertising model, this aligns the interests of our business with those of our users.
What do you think?
These ideas may be flawed. They may very well be even worse than Facebook as it currently exists. But I’ll bet that somebody can come up with better ideas that work. My point is that I would prefer to see such ideas tested in the market, rather than imposed by a regulator.
I suspect there are several problems:
1) Even a modest $5/month is not cheap to a lot people won’t go that direction. For average person that is giving up something.
2) Facebook size and ability to contact a wide net of people is big plus. I wonder if Facebook has some aspects like Professional Sports League* as a single monopoly makes life better for everyone.
3) Best programmers want to work with Facebook, like Google, making reasonably ahead of competitors.
*Yes I know MLB has a government monopoly that was only passed after the Federal League failed. (And they set up a Commissioner.) Otherwise, NFL, NHL, and NBA don’t have defined monopolies and have little issue with alternative leagues. We have several alternative football leagues and they have all failed fairly quickly.
I like the proposal, although it might be hard to implement on a friend-by-friend basis — perhaps one could tag friends in different buckets, and customize the buckets.
One enhancement I would suggest, to prevent users from locking themselves into a bubble populated mostly by people who think and act in the same way, is to add 2 sliding rules:
1. CounterNews — Select a desired percentage of news/updates from topics and people outside my selected boxes (say 15%)
2. DiversityScore — Select the desired degree of diversity/differentiation represented in the “CounterNews” — 1%: no difference with my main feed — 100%: diametrically opposed/different news/updates
I like it; I’d sign up for the Free Version.
It’s unlikely to work in replacing FB.
I’d support the USA nationalizing the US Facebook part.
I support FB divesting WhatsApp & other social networks.
I support a Digital Utilities Commission to regulate FB.
I’m no longer Libertarian on this issue. 🙁
I am sick of reading about people who want to regulate Facebook.
That’s me.
And the longer there is no alternative to FB, the more those who disagree with some aspect of FB will be thinking the gov’t, not the market, needs to take some action.
Arnold, where are the rich donor entrepreneurs (Peter Theil?) you have contacts with who can help create such an alternative? Google hangouts & google plus will not be it.
Taking on FB is an extremely complex problem, which I strongly doubt will be solved in the next decade by the market. So a lousy, gov’t, complicated regulation looks far more politically likely to me. Breakup (anti-trust)? Nationalize (in America??)? Regulate as a utility? (Fantasy despotism is … so fantastic!)
How about: Create a free national alternative? (like the Health care website???)
My guess is that would too much effort and personal insight to be useful.
I propose that the key innovations that made FB valuable was the convenience in tuning your macro info filter — just select who and what you follow — and the news feed as a convenient, low cost way to scan information to find the stuff that interests you. If an item doesn’t interest you, just scan past it.
What has made it less valuable, for me, at least, is that it has become harder to find stuff that interests me.
I might be partially responsible because I’ve cast too wide of a net and don’t feel like putting much thought into who or what to unfollow. Some of it may be on the algorithm in serving up stuff that makes it money over stuff that others, like me, have found interesting.
I’ve experienced this with Google, too. It once reliably gave me what I was searching for quickly, based on how many others have linked to it. Now, it gives me who has paid the most for the terms I’m using and my success rate to finding what I really want seems to have dropped off.