Facebook Security Chief Said to Leave After Clashes Over Disinformation • Hacker News Board

Re: Facebook Security Chief Said to Leave After Clashes Over Disinformation

#351

Post by opportune » Tue, Mar 20, 2018, 5:19 AM UTC

mhneu wrote: post #315

opportune wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's also the fact that political propaganda comes in a lot more veiled forms than corporate propaganda. Because it's in a sense natural for us to discuss politics face to face, or at least we recognize that some level of discussion about politics is necessary and good, we're mostly ok with things like celebrities endorsing a candidate. A candidate traveling around the country and speaking to potential voters is p…

I agree the problem is money, and I also agree that bad faith and disinformation are true measures of problematic political communication. A principle we could rely on is openness. Just disclose who is paying for what. And disclose the ads. If Trump/CA/Russia targeted an ad at you distorting HRC's record, we should know who paid for it. Up until now, political ads - TV, billboards, even direct mail - were discoverabl…

I agree with you in principle, but I'm not sure how feasible this given that I literally can't think of how to implement it. Political advocacy groups use complex hierarchies of shell companies and revolving payments to get money from super-donors into advertising. FB can't just release an invoice saying something like (Payment: 106,000; Sender: Robert Mercer) or "paid for by the Russian Federation". It would say things like "paid for by the Committee to Improve America", which receives money from the Pro-Families Committee, funded by the Traditionalists Group, an advocacy arm of the Peers Think Tank, which has ~100s of wealthy donors.

Re: Facebook Security Chief Said to Leave After Clashes Over Disinformation

#352

Post by jessaustin » Tue, Mar 20, 2018, 5:26 AM UTC

magnusss wrote: post #306

briandear wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the story was thoroughly researched and reported in depth by a team of professional journalists working for the New York Times No. It was Ronan Farrow that originally broke the story. The NY Times took their sweet time before going after someone that was an ultra-major Democrat party donor. The Weinstein story was rejected by multiple "professional" news outlets. The "professional" journalists working for the NY Ti…

I was unaware of the Farrow article, thank you for noting it. Its role in publicizing the Weinstein scandal doesn’t diminish my point, however. Farrow is hardly an amateur; as a Rhodes Scholar and Yale Law graduate, he’s been published in numerous journals and works as an undercover journalist for NBC News. His article on Weinstein was carried by The New Yorker, a magazine with a stellar reputation for high journalis…

I don't know anything about the particulars here, but this explanation seems very strange? Do NYT have someone on the staff at New Yorker magazine to make sure they never get scooped by a weekly?

Re: Facebook Security Chief Said to Leave After Clashes Over Disinformation

#353

Post by TangoTrotFox » Tue, Mar 20, 2018, 5:26 AM UTC

oflannabhra wrote: post #170

My greatest hope with all of the noise surrounding this, is that the engineers and employees at Facebook realize that Facebook and Zuckerberg’s vision does not line up with reality. Zuckerberg believes that Facebook will connect people and change the fabric of society and communities for good in a way that was heretofore impossible. Between Facebook’s political issues and the happiness-depressing effects of its use,…

"Zuckerberg believes that Facebook will connect people and change the fabric of society and communities for good.." is marketing speak. What does Zuckerberg believe? Nobody knows that except Zuckerberg. But I really doubt it's that.

You don't even need to look at meta-effects of Facebook. Look at how it operates, in effect. It splits people into mutually exclusive echo chambers that are falling increasingly far away from reality in terms of median ideological view. Far from connecting people social media has become, arguably, the single biggest factor in societal division in modern history. People even speak of this casually without realizing the implications of what they're saying - 'I can't believe what [non echo chamber approved views] my [friend/family member/acquintance/etc] has. Unfriending!' Of course these views and differences always existed, but in typical social interaction agreeing to disagree on issues is fine. In the social media era, people have started to condemn people over any failure to abide group ideology. It's cult like behavior without the formality.

There's no way in the world you can possibly spin this into a positive or unifying force for society. You've even had founders and executives of speak out against the social harm the company is causing. The point of this is that there's no 'algorithmic veneer' protecting YouTube and Facebook, and I strongly doubt Zuckerberg himself has any delusions about what he's doing. Even most users themselves could easily reason that Facebook is a net negative. But they enjoy and/or are addicted to the services, so they keep using it. It's slot machines on a global scale, where instead of inserting coins - you insert your personal information and get that dopamine rush when somebody likes or otherwise interacts with you.

---

As for employees - you'll never make a company change from the bottom up. Most people don't work for ideologies - they work for money. And Facebook has deep enough pockets to ensure that they'll never suffer for a lack of employees.

Re: Facebook Security Chief Said to Leave After Clashes Over Disinformation

#354

Post by opportune » Tue, Mar 20, 2018, 5:33 AM UTC

vtrenrn31 wrote: post #333

opportune wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a difference between me telling you my opinion on an issue and me knowingly spreading false information at a mass scale for personal gain. I think that specifically (in my layman's interpretation of law) does not fall under the first amendment's interpretation of allowing freedom of expression since the expression is not genuine, in the same way that fraud is not genuine. You would not be prosecuted for fraud…

Why are you assuming that the information spread is false? Propaganda is not necessarily false, in fact, it is better if it is true. Platforms like Facebook would be well within their rights to try and prevent politically targeted advertising, even if it would be a fool's errand. Outlawing it would be unconstitutional. If they try to prevent "spreading of false information" by political advertisers I've no doubt they…

First, I agree propaganda is not always false, but if you read a post I made earlier, you'll see that the reason's it's a problem is that it controls narratives and creates curated biases that give people inaccurate beliefs (e.g. by focusing heavily on single small issues to further a controversy). For example, consider that Russia created fake BLM-related twitter accounts to stoke tensions and drive controversy on both sides of the issue: http://faculty.washington.edu/kstarbi/examining-trolls-polar.... This is somewhat different, less propaganda and more astroturfing, but the effect is the same regarding propaganda: to direct the narrative into something convenient for those behind the strings.

Outlawing political advertising is not what I propose. I believe propaganda is different in its intent: in my opinion direct disinformation or dishonesty (with intent) would be a sufficiently high barrier, given that it would require a high barrier of proof that the supporters were seeking to manipulate opinion with lies. This would ensure nobody would be prosecuted except in the most egregious of cases. I also believe this could be a valid exception to the first amendment in the same vein as libel or slander: spreading false information, with intent, possibly for personal gain. The parallels certainly exist.

Furthermore, I believe I would be just outraged if Hillary did this, and I think this is a pointless distraction. I didn't vote for her and I know that she also had her own shady internet propagandists working too. I think we should do our best to make sure political discussions happen organically, from real people.

Re: Facebook Security Chief Said to Leave After Clashes Over Disinformation

#355

Post by rtx » Tue, Mar 20, 2018, 5:34 AM UTC

mhneu wrote: post #305

letslightafire wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My guess: Selling psychological data to advertisers is boring but if you get Bannon involved and rope it into the Trump news cycle, it suddenly gets a lot of people talking. https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/mar/17/data-war-whistl... This article is probably the biggest one right now.

Selling psychological data to advertisers is boring, but when you get billionaires and foreign powers involved to elect a would-be autocrat who is degrading American democracy, it suddenly gets a lot of people talking. Yup. It's not a surprise why people are interested in the role of data in modern public debate and democracy.

That's why we need safeguards in place. Everyone was happy when Obama used it and never thought it can be used by someone else too.

Edit: Someone linked this below - http://adage.com/article/moy-2008/obama-wins-ad-age-s-market...

Re: Facebook Security Chief Said to Leave After Clashes Over Disinformation

#356

Post by rtx » Tue, Mar 20, 2018, 5:37 AM UTC

mirimir wrote: post #327

RpFLCL wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This fact has me more confused than anything. What did most people think Facebook was doing... Keeping all the data locked away an never letting anyone make use of it? The interest in that data by political entities should have been especially obvious. Additionally, this information about Cambridge Analytica came out months ago. I remember first hearing about it on a podcast that was mostly focused on the personality…

There's a clear distinction between selling widgets based on however-detailed behavioral profiling, and influencing the results of elections.

Its sad that you think that. Election campaigning and selling products shouldn't be different. What we need to be fighting is false claims.

Re: Facebook Security Chief Said to Leave After Clashes Over Disinformation

#357

Post by opportune » Tue, Mar 20, 2018, 5:37 AM UTC

ekianjo wrote: post #267

opportune wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I highly disagree. It's easier to simply disallow veiled political advertisements (propaganda) for both platforms and propagandists. Nobody has a "right" to spread propaganda, just like nobody has a right to defraud people simply because they aren't able to spot a scam

The point is that fraud is illegal, and prosecuted when found, this is made very clear to begin with. Spreading information or misinformation is not, and it is up to the recipient to use critical thinking. If you believe people are being manipulated because they can't seen through blatant lies, then the problem is not in the lies.

Sure, and in my opinion we should make (knowingly) spreading disinformation in political contexts illegal, just as we have made spreading disinformation in financial contexts illegal. To me there seem to be almost direct parallels between the two, and I (without a law degree, of course) believe knowingly spreading misinformation could use similar arguments as libel and slander as precedents for its relationship with the first amendment

I agree that we need better education or something of the like to also work towards hardening people against propaganda, but I don't see these different approaches to the same problem as mutually exclusive. And while I would want more funding / different methods to be explored in education independently of this, and believe it could yield amazing benefits for society as a whole, I recognize that the first option might be more cost effective

Re: Facebook Security Chief Said to Leave After Clashes Over Disinformation

#358

Post by dnomad » Tue, Mar 20, 2018, 5:41 AM UTC

DrScump wrote: post #300

danso wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's a Twitter thread by someone who worked on Obama's campaign talking about her firm's use of Facebook data. It was tweeted by Julian Assange so I'm assuming it's one of the more damning examples of the Obama campaign using social media data: https://twitter.com/cld276/status/975564499297226752 https://twitter.com/cld276/status/975568130117459975 This person asserts that people from Facebook gave them their bless…

people who signed up for the app knew they would be explicitly allowing this Obama-connected app access to info/friend data. But the targeted friends had no say in the matter and gave no consent to being isolated and targeted.

What on earth makes you think they "targeted friends"? What does that even mean? Did they spam friends with unwanted emails and phone calls? Did they try to propagandize friends with ads targeted to certain demographics? Did they literally light up the friends with green lasers?

Re: Facebook Security Chief Said to Leave After Clashes Over Disinformation

#359

Post by hasanphd » Tue, Mar 20, 2018, 5:41 AM UTC

Sad.

Re: Facebook Security Chief Said to Leave After Clashes Over Disinformation

#360

Post by mirimir » Tue, Mar 20, 2018, 5:42 AM UTC

SlowRobotAhead wrote: post #349

mirimir wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a clear distinction between selling widgets based on however-detailed behavioral profiling, and influencing the results of elections.

>influencing the results of elections. I’d like some explaination of $1.2 billion is spent on Clinton some of which came from Saudi, Canada, UK, Australia, Norway and that’s all well and good! But $500,000 spent against her is “influencing elections”. Is Facebook advertising that effective!? I’d really appreciate if people stopped using the term “influencing elections” that’s the whole point of campaigning. In relate…

I don't like any of those. I do my best to avoid being manipulated by ads. And I especially avoid political ads. I want unbiased information for choosing.

Restricting political advertising is not such an unprecedented concept. The risks are just too fundamental.