I've seen similar patterns of behaviour at corporations that are extremely metrics-driven (I don't call it "data-driven" that's bullshit).

Management put up the metrics they care about and think they are doing well when those reach some thresholds. They stop thinking about the qualitative side of anything over the time, and truly believe if the metrics are going where they want to it's because people love the experience overall.

It's very McNamara fallacy-y. Even more when you get sycophants around to push whatever your vision is, even to the detriment of the overall experience.

The quote does not suggest that he thinks people like the feed algorithm, just that it knows a lot about them. Extending that to thinking an AI that knows a lot about you will be a likeable companion isn’t quite so crazy in that context. (Though it is seeming to disregard that many people think society would be healthier if people went outside with their friends more and instead goes all-in on AI dystopia.)

It's really just a political statement, he's saying that you better get accustomed to being overworked that you'd only have time for parasocial relationships like these AI absurdities they're coming up with.

From the limited views we've had of Zuck, I think it's fair to conclude he's not really a people person.

I've noticed that rich and/or powerful people have a particular bias. They have a tendency to think their thought processes and preferences extend out to everyone, because they are successful and everyone wants to be successful.

I noticed this with RTO. I think a lot of executives genuinely, really thought it would improve our (ICs) jobs. Because think about what executives do. They sit around, talk to a bunch of people, make a bunch of decisions, and ultimately try to "sell" things. Well, that kind of stinks over zoom. So for them, it's true, RTO does make their job better. They can't really fathom, or maybe they just refuse to, what our job is. They don't sit there and walk a mile in our shoes.

For someone like Zuck, maybe this is how he would prefer his friends to be. That's kind of sad and pathetic, but what's even more sad is that he seems incapable of understanding other perspectives.

You guys can hide all the spam/non-friends stuff???

You're right. However, you must be gaslit and your true observations called into question, to protect the aura of the advertising industry and belief in the algoritms.

All of these algorithms are insanely effective. Thousands of smart people smarter than you made them, how could they not work? If they don't work on you, you're an outlier, they work on everyone else. They work on you, but you just don't realize it. All of these algorithms are insanely effective. Thousands of smart people smarter than you made them, how could they not work? If they don't work on you, you're an outlier, they work on everyone else. They work on you, but you just don't realize it. All of these algorithms are insanely effective. Thousands of smart people smarter than you made them, how could they not work? If they don't work on you, you're an outlier, they work on everyone else. They work on you, but you just don't realize it.

That's a really fun exercise. Mine shows: 1. A popular media personality I like and actually follow. The algorithm is sometimes OK with guessing the topmost post. 2. People you may know. 3. Some make-up advertisement by a Facebook user in one of the groups I'm in (totally irrelevant) 4. Some vaguely relevant news item about my city 5. A cute puppy 6. A vaguely relevant news item again 7. Irrelevant reels

Basically, my life hasn't been enriched by seeing the feed in any way. The one in the top spot was fine but I actively follow that person anyway and check their profile from time to time, so I wouldn't have missed it.

> I wonder how much time HE spends with his algorithms every day

Don't know about him, but I understand he tightly shields his own kids from social media use.

Maybe a lot, but he enjoys the IF user == "zuck" THEN statements in the code.

Do you think everyone that smokes likes cigarettes?

Addictions are strange to comprehend.

If you ask around, how many people who constantly uses their feed you think will answer "I love this product and the feed I get"?

I don't know many people in real life who praises it, it's a thing that some are absolutely addicted to, others use as a pastime in the bathroom, in queues, anywhere they would get bored. Many even display the same behaviour as addicts, they don't want to be there, and have to create friction and obstacles to make them avoid it, just this weekend I taught a friend on how they could limit their time on Instagram after he opened up that it was just making him sad and he couldn't stop, tried deleting the app a few times and always ended up reinstalling in a couple of days.

You are falling into the same trap as Zuck, just because usage is high doesn't mean people like it.

The algorithmic feed is the default one whenever you visit the site. It doesn't mean people like it, only that this is where they go first before clicking through to the "Friends" feed — sure, they could bookmark the friends feed, but will they? I mean, I vaguely remember that a fresh install of safari has facebook.com itself as a default bookmark, though I always delete such things and memory is fallible.

And that's without counting the addictive vs. valuable distinction that the other replies are making.

They're addicted to getting angry, I would not call it enjoying