Facebook’s Safety Check is a stress-inducing flip of social norms • Hacker News Board

Re: Facebook’s Safety Check is a stress-inducing flip of social norms

#131

Post by jakeogh » Thu, Jun 15, 2017, 5:20 AM UTC

seanp2k2 wrote: post #120

jdietrich wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

About 500 people were directly endangered by this incident. The Safety Check alert seems to extend well beyond Greater London, so at least 9 million people. That gives us an approximate false positive rate of 99.995%. Is that reasonable or proportionate? Does it actually provide useful information? Is it likely to quell unfounded fears and provide genuine reassurance? As tragic as this incident was, it affected a sin…

"If this is a genuine public safety feature, if Facebook really are using Safety Check out of concern for their users welfare, then they should fully accept the concomitant responsibility. They should expend real resources to liaise with the relevant agencies and ensure that Safety Check is deployed only when appropriate, that it is accurately targeted and that it helps rather than hinders relief efforts. If Facebook…

Excellent. I appreciate that. From my perspective well-intentioned is charitable for a social engineering platform. I have no doubt that is an accurate description for the vast majority of people involved, including the engineers you know, but this is almost a law of physics, it's too valuable to not be worth using; it's much more useful than old-school media: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ajes.2017.76.issu...

Re: Facebook’s Safety Check is a stress-inducing flip of social norms

#132

Post by jimmywanger » Thu, Jun 15, 2017, 5:21 AM UTC

rabboRubble wrote: post #78

I lived through a major natural disaster that left me an evacuee for months. Facebook's safety check is the only reason I haven't killed my account and I've said this before in prior comments here on Hacker News. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14412146 Thank god the author hasn't lived through an event where everybody you know is affected by the event. The ability to say "I'm okay", say it once, and have everyb…

No, what the author is trying to say is that it's up to the individual to assuage fears or confirm problems.

We all have those extremely nervous and neurotic friends who jump to conclusions about things that would have no affect on you whatsoever.

I've had people just today ask me if I was ok based on the fact that the UPS shootings occurred in San Francisco and I'm currently in the Bay Area.

Now with Facebook able to unilaterally decide that I might have been affected, so they send out a systemwide alert, that confirms or creates everybody's worst fears. If I am affected, I'll reach out when I'm able to. If I'm not affected, why waste cycles calming people down that I didn't alert?

Re: Facebook’s Safety Check is a stress-inducing flip of social norms

#133

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Jun 15, 2017, 5:22 AM UTC

HalfwayToDice wrote: post #125

fratlas wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with you up until the mic comment. I ran a few tests with friends. We talked about very obscure topics repeatedly (and nothing else) that we would otherwise would have never messaged, and after scrolling 2 mins, targeted ads appeared for those topics. Happened for multiple topics.

It embarrasses me to see such conspiratorial nonsense on this website. There are many reasons why such things happen: coincidence, someone google the topic from the same router IP address, ad tracking on Googled websites, etc etc The idea that one of the worlds largest companies would risk their entire business by secretly recording their users for ad revenue is absurd on almost every level. Yet some people on Hacker…

[deleted]

Re: Facebook’s Safety Check is a stress-inducing flip of social norms

#134

Post by austenallred » Thu, Jun 15, 2017, 5:26 AM UTC

amaks wrote: post #112

austenallred wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I just call my friends up. Crazy, I know. There's nothing wrong with calling friends up, but that takes a lot of work and a synchronous connection between two people. There are hundreds of people I want to know about or stay in touch with but don't have the time to call them all up individually. Facebook makes being friends easier. That's a pretty solid value add. I would probably lose a lot of friends more easily…

How about email?

A terribly inconvenient way to send/see pictures, organize events, etc. Facebook does what it does very, very well. I don't feel the need for a replacement.

Re: Facebook’s Safety Check is a stress-inducing flip of social norms

#135

Post by thinkfurther » Thu, Jun 15, 2017, 5:26 AM UTC

praneshp wrote: post #104

Analemma_ wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Zuckerberg said plainly that people who trust him are "dumb fucks", so I have what I think is the natural response and don't trust him. It's not complicated.

I assume you also expect people who commit crimes to rot in jail forever, and do not support rehabilitation instead. Because the dumb fucks comment was in 2004. Edit: (In case you nitpick my analogy) I guess you would not hire a person that was jailed in the past, because you cannot trust them.

1. Did Zuckerberg ever publically come clean about that phase and his motivations during it?

2. Has anything really changed?

Otherwise, what is this rehabilitation you speak of? Two parties are required, someone who forgives, someone who seeks forgiveness. To turn not seeking forgiveness into being unforgiving is just projection, and to give forgiveness where it is not sought would make a mockery of the whole effort, and of those who actually do reflect and repent. People who are the bottleneck don't get to hold the rest hostage. If he is too fucked up, then he's too fucked up, then that's sad but true and I'm not his brother or son or father to pour resources into him when there are far more worthy recipients. At the very least, he queued himself in the back as far as I'm concerned, correctly so.

Zuckerberg could live out the rest of his live just from his current wealth, and you're still white knighting using some poor Schmuck who made a misstep that could ruin his life unfairly as an example? Just step back and ponder that.

What about potential social networks made by people who are more grounded? Who don't exploit their fellow men? Those don't get a chance because we can't damn Zuckerberg for having been back then who he still is today, or what? Don't just think "what if this billionaire was my starving little sister", also think of the opportunity costs.

Re: Facebook’s Safety Check is a stress-inducing flip of social norms

#136

Post by sboselli » Thu, Jun 15, 2017, 5:35 AM UTC

rabboRubble wrote: post #78

I lived through a major natural disaster that left me an evacuee for months. Facebook's safety check is the only reason I haven't killed my account and I've said this before in prior comments here on Hacker News. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14412146 Thank god the author hasn't lived through an event where everybody you know is affected by the event. The ability to say "I'm okay", say it once, and have everyb…

So you're extrapolating your own personal successful experience with every case and every possible setting, while also showing quite a bit of prejudice towards the author.

He does make valid points, and furthermore, as others have said, a 6 mile radius in a city like London covers hundreds of thousands of people.

I can and would argue until infinity that there is absolutely no need whatsoever for a 6 mile radius warning in the event of 1 (one) single building on fire. Weather you like it or not or agree with FB or not, this was a completely localized event of minimal or no impact (other than maybe traffic for a couple of blocks??) to such an area.

The same is clearly not true for events of other nature (natural disasters, nuclear, maybe manhunts but I already find that one questionable.., etc.)

That is to say, the service is not evil or a bad idea. The criticism is more on the execution and the unnecessary, rather opportunistic, abuse of such an event.

If the author is indeed biased because he did not live through such an event, then you are most definitely also biased because you did live through one; and you certainly seem to be not only receptive and even defensive, but apparently offended.

This was more of yet another case of attention grabbing, manipulative and opportunistic behaviour with a good samaritan cover.

Make no mistake: salesmen, media (in all formats), advertisers, politicians and companies of all sorts have been doing this for centuries.

I understand you lived through an instance where this helped, but a single building on fire does not equal a natural disaster. The scale and impact is just very different, there is no arguing that.

It's pretty simple actually: there is (should be) an appropriate level of response and a corresponding correct setting. In this particular case, it was way way off. Don't let your personal experience prevent you from recognizing that, for it's the same thing you accuse him of.

And again, even acknowledging that, you may still not agree that it was done with an opportunistic intention; and that's fine, but it shouldn't prevent you or anyone from openly discussing where the correct boundaries are.

Re: Facebook’s Safety Check is a stress-inducing flip of social norms

#137

Post by dzjkb » Thu, Jun 15, 2017, 5:36 AM UTC

naasking wrote: post #48

austenallred wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What rationale could I possibly give someone to stop using Facebook that would convince them to forgo all of the value they get from it?

Actual empirical studies that show they DON'T get any value from it, and that it actually makes people more miserable on the whole?

I don't think people care about "empirical studies" telling them something contrary to their own experience.

Re: Facebook’s Safety Check is a stress-inducing flip of social norms

#138

Post by TeMPOraL » Thu, Jun 15, 2017, 5:39 AM UTC

aaron-lebo wrote: post #54

Sacho wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't have a strong opinion about your general question, but this is easily explainable: > Safety Check is a wonderful feature. If I remember correctly, it started off as an internal hackathon project that got turned into a full feature. They get shit if they turn it on (here), and if they don't turn it on (past tragedies where they failed to turn it on). It's just not the same people doing the complaining. That so…

They don't just have lots of users, they have more users than any country in the history of the world (that's 1.9 billion monthly users). Therefore there are potentially massive, world-changing consequences to everything they do, and even those who don't use it can't opt out of the effects. Do you really feel like a non-democratic oligarchy (or more inflammatory language, a dictator) should have that much power? edit…

But Facebook isn't a country. It's a free (as in beer) on-line service. It's completely opt-in, and its only claim to you is the strength of its network effect - which, as history shows, is something very fragile both on the local and global scale.

What you're afraid of is evil CEOs doing mind control, not despotism.

Re: Facebook’s Safety Check is a stress-inducing flip of social norms

#139

Post by TeMPOraL » Thu, Jun 15, 2017, 5:41 AM UTC

austenallred wrote: post #75

nickpsecurity wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The combination of a wildly successful company, not caring about privacy, and a (formerly) bombastic founder. It's the perfect storm for HN shitposting" Them implementing a feature so poorly that it tells people 6 miles away to confirm they're safe from a building fire is a "perfect storm for HN shitposting" because of the success of the company, privacy issues, and the founder? And not because the feature is a fail…

No, because people already hate Facebook so much that when they make a small mistake it gets blown up and turned into a giant news story and hits the front page of HN, filling it up with "delete Facebook!!!" posts.

Frankly, thank the mainstream media.

I bet if Techcrunch didn't write about it, we wouldn't even have this story. If I posted it on my personal blog, I'd be rightly laughed out of the room.

Re: Facebook’s Safety Check is a stress-inducing flip of social norms

#140

Post by tr1ck5t3r » Thu, Jun 15, 2017, 5:45 AM UTC

rabboRubble wrote: post #78

I lived through a major natural disaster that left me an evacuee for months. Facebook's safety check is the only reason I haven't killed my account and I've said this before in prior comments here on Hacker News. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14412146 Thank god the author hasn't lived through an event where everybody you know is affected by the event. The ability to say "I'm okay", say it once, and have everyb…

I wonder where that idea came from!