Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Facebook’s war on free will

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 284 posts

Re: Facebook’s war on free will

#241

Post by root_axis »

ryandrake wrote: post #198
root_axis wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, someone could certainly take your photo and post it on Facebook without your knowledge and that could lead to serious consequences, however, one's photo could just as easily end up on reddit, imgur, HN or any other internet community. Incidentally, the photo posted on Facebook would at least not be indexed by google.

What specific serious consequences could it lead to? Maybe Facebook has my photo through a friend, maybe it doesn't. I have no idea and have never needed to care.

I'm speaking generally, maybe you don't have to care, but that might not always necessarily be the case and certainly isn't the case for many people. For example, maybe you're supposed to be at work but a photo is taken of you at the beach. Maybe you're not supposed to be drinking (for legal or marital or personal reasons) but someone takes a photo of you at the bar. Maybe you told someone something that's not true but a photo ends up showing that to be a lie. I'm not saying these or similar scenarios will ever apply to you, but it's easy to see how someone who doesn't use Facebook could face serious consequences for a photo that they did not upload.

Re: Facebook’s war on free will

#242

Post by hughw »

deathgrindfreak wrote: post #240
hughw wrote: post #81

The author mischaracterizes algorithms and ridiculously attributes their importance in computer science to a desire by programmers to polish their own images. He reveals ignorance of one of the biggest motivations for the earliest computers, which was to solve differential equations in several domains. Eigenvalue estimation algorithms existed long before Page Rank.

Exactly. To me he mistakes concepts like page ranking (which I think are much more akin to heuristics) with the purely mathematical concept of computation.

Probably there are a lot of heuristics in page ranking now, but it began life as an eigenvalue problem [1].

[1]http://ilpubs.stanford.edu:8090/422/1/1999-66.pdf

Re: Facebook’s war on free will

#243

Post by yung_endian »

Animats wrote: post #162
molteanu wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This, from Dune: "Once men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them."

With the bozos running things in Dune, it might have been better with machines in charge.

Don't talk shit about my boy Leto II like that. It's not easy to navigate the Golden Path

Re: Facebook’s war on free will

#244

Post by DarkIye »

This article started off well but began to lose me around the time he said:

"Computer scientists have an aphorism that describes how algorithms relentlessly hunt for patterns: they talk about torturing the data until it confesses."

This is the first time I have seen this formulation of the nature of data. Data is almost always regarded as an input, or a resource, or a substrate, not a being of any kind.

The article generally seems to be less about its title and more about Facebook's business on the whole, and it's an interesting read.

Re: Facebook’s war on free will

#245

Post by randcraw »

trendia wrote: post #25
ikeyany wrote: post #16

You could take a year-long class on the psychological influence (some call it social engineering) of Facebook and you'd barely scratch the surface. One example I find particularly interesting is how Facebook slowly expanded what would trigger a notification, keeping people fixated on that red box like rats to sugar water.

It had the opposite effect for me -- now that everything gives me a notification, half the time I see the red dot on the corner I assune it's something stupid.

Same problem at LinkedIn. Most notifications are "We've found someone you might know" or "We've found a job you might like".

Cry wolf, why don't you.

Re: Facebook’s war on free will

#246

Post by majewsky »

Barrin92 wrote: post #159
makomk wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course, in the pre-internet age we were forced to outsource our thinking to the press instead, it's just that you're less likely to see them running articles about how they themselves are waging a war on our free will.

I didn't really entrust my personal information, my friendships, my CV or anything else to the press. In fact, there was no institution comparable to social media that so intimately, on a personal and individual level interfered with my life. Sure, reading certain newspapers or others was and is a way for people to shape their views of the world, but it is very much a one way relationship. I can read what I want or I…

> Social media, which is entirely private and corporate operates in opaque fashion bound to basically nothing but their own interest.

There is a small glimmer of pressure on Twitter and Facebook from the public since last year. Things are changing. Glacially slowly, as always, but they are changing. I suppose that's the same development that happened with newspapers a few centuries ago. (I would be very surprised to hear that newspapers were held responsible to some sort of common standard from the very beginning.)

Re: Facebook’s war on free will

#247

Post by majewsky »

katzgrau wrote: post #106
adjkant wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, I think the right company with the right marketing could make Facebook completely irrelevant. All you'd need is a basic address book/profile functionality + basic messaging + event planning. Perhaps a use as a universal login, as many do like that. They would lose a ton of users if the network effect would catch on, which is obviously the big hurdle. It would also be a curious case of brands being left with…

FB's tentacles are so deeply embedded in everything that I'm not sure a classic tech death from a disruptor is possible. Only a long and slow decline over a period of 5, maybe even 10 years.

I remember when they said the same thing about Microsoft.

Re: Facebook’s war on free will

#248

Post by majewsky »

mrec wrote: post #144
katzgrau wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FB's tentacles are so deeply embedded in everything that I'm not sure a classic tech death from a disruptor is possible. Only a long and slow decline over a period of 5, maybe even 10 years.

If Zuck does end up making a Presidential run, I think that'd have a very good chance of triggering a sizeable decline in its US userbase.

Honest question: Would Zuck be running for the GOP or the Dems?

Well, I suppose that, in 2020, only the Dem ticket is up for grabs since Trump will be running for a second term, but if Zuck got to choose, would he go with the Republicans instead?

Re: Facebook’s war on free will

#249

Post by randcraw »

root_axis wrote: post #101

I wish people would stop contributing to the Facebook mythos that elevates a social media platform into some kind of software based deity. It's just a website, it's not a threat to "free will" any more than a cigarette or coke addiction is a threat to "free will". People recite grand expositions regarding how "I stopped using facebook and it changed my life forever! I've never looked back!"... wonderful, but I want t…

FB's mobile app is used way more than their website. Intended to be left on and active 24x7, that's probably how most people use it -- so they're never out of touch.

If not a software deity, that's at least a 'daemon on my shoulder'.

Re: Facebook’s war on free will

#250

Post by majewsky »

KGIII wrote: post #216
ntsplnkv2 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And I've seen friendships and families destroyed by arguments on FaceBook. We've also seen how much of it is truly fake, curated by foreign companies and political groups to push agendas.

That doesn't actually negate my point. I don't actually have a Facebook account, but their big data does provide some value to some people. The question of it being worth the overall harm is a different question altogether. Like it or not, it provides value to some. Which is, coincidentally, about the nicest thing I've ever said about them. Please don't make me defend them again, I feel dirty.

> Like it or not, it provides value to some.

I don't think that ntsplnkv2 disputed that. He points out that benefits should not be considered in isolation, and instead argues for a cost-benefit analysis.

Post reply on HN