So what is a good way to think about solving these problems from a design perspective?
This question is one of the reasons why we set up the institute, because there are actually some things that have been tried in space, for different levels of success, but that knowledge exists in small groups in many companies and it has not been widely disseminated.
One of my favorite examples I’ve always pointed out is the Google Search Quality Team and what they’ve been doing for at least 2015 or earlier. Google has created a search quality guideline. Everything is very purposeful; They are not evaluating the content qualitatively, they are just looking for objective criteria. Most of these are actually just basic media literacy tests, such as: all things being equal, the publisher or the creator of the content is better if they are transparent about who they are. Another is the variety of ways to evaluate how much effort has been put into the content, since all things being equal it is better to work harder. There will be low quality signal, has the content been copied from somewhere else?
At the moment, though, when it comes to quality measurement, it seems that on the one hand, such as: Duh, of course platforms will try to make users look good and not make them look bad. But they seem to be moving away from this, at least in the case of Facebook, because they are afraid to show up as a favorite, especially among user-generated content.
Many of the social media companies that have come out of the Internet since the 2000s, their many mission statements and their values are all about giving a voice. YouTube’s mission statement is to “give everyone a voice and show them to the world.” Twitter’s mission statement is, I just forgot-
“To give everyone the ability to instantly create and share ideas and information without interruption.”
“Immediately without interruption,” yes. Facebook’s initial mission statement was, “Connect everyone in the world.”
All of these mission statements are just like, “Let everyone talk, show everyone everything, bring everyone together” and they don’t fit any objective definition of quality, to say what kind of content we want to succeed. On the platform.
And these are all very suitable for growth. We should not be surprised at all that the big platforms that survived the first generation or two social media companies gave priority to growth, which saw that the bigger you are, the more useful you are, and so you have to grow as fast as possible.
It has a depressing effect, that is, Facebook and other influential platforms make a lot of money working the way they do now. And yet one thing that Facebook Papers has published is as influential as Facebook-Or metaআছেIn the market, they are still really scared of potential competitors like TikTok. So if you propose to change something that might break some of that short-term instant engagement, you think the leaders of this company might not take the risk of opening some annoying kid TikTok because Facebook is trying to read them. New Yorker Are we being fooled into talking about changing platforms in this way?