Live data from Hacker News

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

techcrunch.com

241–250 of 300 posts

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

#241

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…

TIL asking someone you know who has been through a disaster if they are okay is a "bullshit inquiry."

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

#242
I can kind of understand the vilification of this feature, and the reasons for that are explained in other comments on this post, but I think it's a major improvement to how it would have been before, and on other current platforms as well. Unlike other ways to keep in touch with friends, like WhatsApp, WeChat, Kakao, Facebook isn't just a messaging platform (although that's how I primarily use it) and so it's actually possible to see someone marked as safe without having to directly message them about it. This is a direct improvement over other platforms where the only way you know if someone is safe is to actually message them.

I don't really buy the argument that you would just assume someone is safe before; you would absolutely have thw worry that if there was a disaster in London, you would want to know if your friend is safe. Previously you couldn't easily contact them, though: if you even had their phone number, calling them internationally wouldn't be easy or sometimes even possible, but often you'd have their address, and hope they would respond to you. Now it's much easier to keep in touch.

I also feel like people are making controversy over nothing when they think that asking if they're safe when they're in London during that fire is too much if they're not in the vicinity. Facebook is in a catch-22 here; Facebook either knows your (roughly) exact location and knows if you were in or near the apartment building at the time, which would make people cry about Facebook tracking you everywhere, or it doesn't and it asks if you're safe if you're in London. Even in the image from the tweet that this article references there is a "Not in the area" button you can press. There's really no way to correctly do this without having really accurate and very up to date information about the people using Facebook, which isn't always possible.

Could Facebook improve the ways it determines if a user is in the area? Yes, of course; a simple way would be to look up IP address block(s) and see if the user is in a block they look up, then prompt them, although it's not really that simple. I also run into issues with Facebook thinking I'm in Japan when I'm not, even though I left nearly a month ago. Facebook really could also improve the UI around it; the point at the bottom of the article when it says that the writer has 100 (probably) London based friends, 97 of which are not "marked as safe", which is terrible UI. But I do absolutely disagree that this feature is worth removing based on the arguments presented in this article.

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

#243
post #242

I can kind of understand the vilification of this feature, and the reasons for that are explained in other comments on this post, but I think it's a major improvement to how it would have been before, and on other current platforms as well. Unlike other ways to keep in touch with friends, like WhatsApp, WeChat, Kakao, Facebook isn't just a messaging platform (although that's how I primarily use it) and so it's actual…

> I don't really buy the argument that you would just assume someone is safe before

The problem is that it doesn't matter how you react to the feature. The problem is how groups of people react to it.

This isn't much different than saying you'd calmly walk to the exit if caught in a fire in a club. Even assuming you evaluate your own behavior in that situation correctly, it has zero effect on everyone else.

> There's really no way to correctly do this without having really accurate and very up to date information about the people using Facebook, which isn't always possible.

So maybe if you can't do something reliably, and there are risks to getting it wrong, the proper response isn't 'hold my beer?'

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

#244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> While that one tower was burning in London there were probably hundreds of other buildings of the same size burning in other places around the world at the same time Hundreds sounds like a massive overestimation to me. You're saying that every single day there are hundreds of comparable building fires around the world. If we conservatively take "hundreds" to be 200, that would be 200*365 every year. That's 73000 ev…

Well according to this source: http://www.nfpa.org/news-and-research/fire-statistics-and-re... , there were 358K+ home fires in the US alone between 2010 and 2014 and I'm guessing that US has pretty good fire safety standards compared to the rest of the world (and this doesn't even include buildings which are not homes). 73K per year doesn't seem so crazy anymore.

Except that the comment I was replying to was taking specifically about buildings of the same size as the London one - and clearly taking about fires of a comparable magnitude to the London one (otherwise their comparison would have been meaningless). Home fires are irrelevant to that.

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

#245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine if one-fifth of the entire global population read the same newspaper every morning. Imagine if that same newspaper also operated the largest espionage network in the history of humanity. Facebook doesn't receive nearly enough scrutiny and criticism. Western governments have been completely blindsided by the immense power that lies in the hands of Mark Zuckerberg. Facebook have a near-monopoly on social media…

I feel strongly to respond. Chicken little. That's what came to mind when I read your reply. If FB OR ANY other entiry gets you so upset then stop using it. We all make choices. I always give this example. My grandmother could have voted for every losing president during her lifetime but because of other more important choices like who to marry, whether to work hard or not, what people she associates with, when to ha…

> If FB OR ANY other entiry gets you so upset then stop using it.

I posted this in another reply, but that's effectively impossible. Facebook collects data on you from friends and family that use it. How do you suggest I stop that? What about Facebooks's tracking code all over the internet? Know a foolproof way to block that too?

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

#246
post #243
post #242

I can kind of understand the vilification of this feature, and the reasons for that are explained in other comments on this post, but I think it's a major improvement to how it would have been before, and on other current platforms as well. Unlike other ways to keep in touch with friends, like WhatsApp, WeChat, Kakao, Facebook isn't just a messaging platform (although that's how I primarily use it) and so it's actual…

> I don't really buy the argument that you would just assume someone is safe before The problem is that it doesn't matter how you react to the feature. The problem is how groups of people react to it. This isn't much different than saying you'd calmly walk to the exit if caught in a fire in a club. Even assuming you evaluate your own behavior in that situation correctly, it has zero effect on everyone else. > There's…

> So maybe if you can't do something reliably, and there are risks to getting it wrong, the proper response isn't 'hold my beer?'

Is the argument that this shouldn't be done because it can't be perfect?

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

#247
post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you kidding me? This is not a "wonderful feature" this is a blatant attempt to capitalize on disasters and turn it into user engagement which becomes ad revenue for Facebook. Give me a break.

Is there anything Facebook could do at this point that wouldn't make you think this? Just because someone's making money off of something doesn't mean it's inherently bad.

Your attitude is absurd, man. Making money is not inherently bad, we all have to make money to earn a living. Duh.

But jumping on a disaster to make money is always bad. There's a reason being a war profiteer was a prosecutable offense (though that seems to have gone out the window in recent decades.)

I'm not sure what your question is; do you mean is there anything Facebook could do when there's a disaster that wouldn't seem like they're trying to cash grab in a very inappropriate way? I don't know. My response would be Facebook is not important when there's a disaster, there's plenty of other forms of communication. If you can use Facebook then you have internet and phone/texting access, so you don't need Facebook. Your loved ones can get a hold of you by more direct methods.

Which is not to say it's impossible Facebook could come up with a useful feature that would be helpful to people during a disaster; but "Safety Check" is not that.

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

#248

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.

He was 19 at the time he wrote that. He is 33 now. I'm not sure it's natural or fair to judge someone predominantly on an off-the-cuff comment they made almost half their lives ago. I certainly said things at 19 that I wouldn't want attached to my professional identity and that aren't representative of my beliefs and mindset now. While I don't know you, the same is likely true of you, or will be someday. How long in…

> He was 19 at the time he wrote that. He is 33 now. I'm not sure it's natural or fair to judge someone predominantly on an off-the-cuff comment they made almost half their lives ago.

I'm sure that becoming a billionaire and one of the most powerful men in the world has made him infinitely more humble. But I think it's more likely that he's just gotten better at messaging and spin - especially since he now has people to help him do those things.

> How long in the past does something like that need to be before you can start taking other evidence into account?

What evidence (actions not words) is there that Zuckerberg is any more concerned about people's privacy than when he was 19? Take a look at the WhatsApp fiasco[1] - all I see is evidence that we continue to be "dumb fucks" by trusting Facebook.

[1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2016/08/26/whatsapp-me...

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

#249
post #117

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…

I have to disagree. "Not safe" became the default as soon as the concept of social media hit; if there's the slightest chance you may have been affected by an incident, anyone who would check your social postings to see if there was any "word from you" would assume the worst in the absence of such a posting. The human mind is evolved for both empathy and "what-if" scenarios, but not for probability; it will snap to "…

Not for everyone. Maybe "not safe" became the default for some social media users. If so, I feel sorry for you guys. Always needing to check in to assure your friends and family you're not dead seems like a chore with little upside. I can't imagine that that's actually true.

For those of us who do not use social media [yep, looks like I have to be "that guy" today], it's in no way the default. I can tell you that if people I know don't hear from me over social media, they are not going to bat an eye, because it is normal not to hear from me over social media.

It's an interesting question though: Does frequent use of something like Facebook lead to an expectation of future frequent use of it from your peers? I'm not sure if that's true. Try it as an experiment. Don't log into social media for 3 months. See how many "friends" actually try to contact you through some other means to check if you're OK. My guess is that fewer than you think will. I know when I jumped ship on social media, I just stopped logging in without telling anyone, and exactly zero people panicked. They just started E-mailing me when they had something to say.

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

#250
post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How did you ensure that no other apps were listening in the background?

I don't understand--how would other apps trigger related facebook ads?

https://www.quora.com/How-does-Facebook-know-what-I-looked-a...
Post reply on HN