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

Why We Disagree with The New York Times

newsroom.fb.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 325 posts

Re: Why We Disagree with The New York Times

#191

Post by Bartweiss »

chiefalchemist wrote: post #146
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> * it's still not their bigger / biggest PR problem* It's the only one that could matter to them. Congress flopped when Zuckerberg testified. They are clearly no present threat. And we haven't seen a wave of action from states' attorneys general. We have no evidence users are decamping. And by extension, the advertisers are staying. The only weak point is in (a) recruitment and (b) political support from the tech co…

> We have no evidence users are decamping. Last I saw (on HN) was teens usage is down. As for Congress...do you trust them not to loop around again? The fact that FB believes SV is all they have to focus on is what created this mess in the first place, yes? Nuff said.

> Last I saw (on HN) was teens usage is down.

Teen usage has been dropping for a while, though, with corresponding rises in Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat. Are there numbers saying teen usage reacted to these stories at all?

Re: Why We Disagree with The New York Times

#192

Post by jacobush »

smallnamespace wrote: post #178
zzzeek wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

unethical science does not deserve to be wrapped in its journalistic language in an effort to detach it from the harm it caused, it deserves to be called out for what it actually is, in this case intentional psychological manipulation of people's moods without their knowledge or consent. One does not grasp the true harm caused by unethical experiments by reading only the documented (published or non-published) scient…

How do you distinguish between unethical science and A/B testing, or even just 'We changed our product, then didn't like the results, and changed it back?'

Medical trials are also just A/B testing. waves hands

Re: Why We Disagree with The New York Times

#193

Post by MAGZine »

albertgoeswoof wrote: post #131

I unexpectedly agree with FB here. If NYT are correct then we can kiss goodbye to APIs that are used by any services that are not explicitly written and signed by the service provider. In the extreme that means you won't be able to log in to facebook on the web, only via a facebook app, because there's no guarantee that a 3rd party web browser isn't stealing data. That goes for any and every service dealing with pers…

> That goes for any and every service dealing with personal data, and we pretty much lose the open web.

Some might argue that centralized walled-gardens like Facebook are actually a risk to "the open web," rather than contributors by allowing access to some data via an API.

Re: Why We Disagree with The New York Times

#194

Post by braindongle »

zzzeek wrote: post #177
braindongle wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Facebook has acted on this and intentionally made hundreds of thousands of people fall into a depression, just to see if they could, and then they bragged about it. No, they did not. They adjusted the proportion of positive emotional expressions and negative emotional expressions in users' news feeds in order to test for an association between that proportion and emotional expressions in users' posts. There are ser…

unethical science does not deserve to be wrapped in its journalistic language in an effort to detach it from the harm it caused, it deserves to be called out for what it actually is, in this case intentional psychological manipulation of people's moods without their knowledge or consent. One does not grasp the true harm caused by unethical experiments by reading only the documented (published or non-published) scient…

I disagree. If you Google for primary literature related to Tuskegee, you will find, front-and-center, publications describing the ethical disaster that it was. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2609060/ https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/3372911/brandt_r... One does indeed grasp the horror.

And, where did the Nazis publish, again?

We certainly need people to responsibly interpret peer-reviewed literature for lay audiences. Responsibly.

Re: Why We Disagree with The New York Times

#195

Post by [deleted] »

md224 wrote: post #77
jakelazaroff wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to the New York Times article [1] the third parties were able to obtain information about you if a friend signs in on their phone, no consent from you required: > Facebook’s view that the device makers are not outsiders lets the partners go even further, The Times found: They can obtain data about a user’s Facebook friends, even those who have denied Facebook permission to share information with any third p…

Not siding with FB here, but their response appears to address this: > Contrary to claims by the New York Times, friends’ information, like photos, was only accessible on devices when people made a decision to share their information with those friends. Maybe the confusion is that FB isn't treating these integrations as "third parties" since they're supposed to be pseudo-official FB apps? Edit: Thinking about it furt…

[deleted]

Re: Why We Disagree with The New York Times

#196

Post by manquer »

md224 wrote: post #77
jakelazaroff wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to the New York Times article [1] the third parties were able to obtain information about you if a friend signs in on their phone, no consent from you required: > Facebook’s view that the device makers are not outsiders lets the partners go even further, The Times found: They can obtain data about a user’s Facebook friends, even those who have denied Facebook permission to share information with any third p…

Not siding with FB here, but their response appears to address this: > Contrary to claims by the New York Times, friends’ information, like photos, was only accessible on devices when people made a decision to share their information with those friends. Maybe the confusion is that FB isn't treating these integrations as "third parties" since they're supposed to be pseudo-official FB apps? Edit: Thinking about it furt…

Sharing with friends is not the same as with data mining third party apps such friends install

Re: Why We Disagree with The New York Times

#197

Post by 456hdsaq234g »

mkirklions wrote: post #51
stealthefocus wrote: post #37

The one thing I really miss since leaving fb in March, are the groups. Things like playing in local sports pickup games are easier because everyone has fb so the groups were more active. I now use my wife's account for this, but I really wish another option had some traction, then I could leave fb forever.

I dont think there is anything wrong with using FB for things you want. I dont scroll anymore. I check it for events and messages. Thats it. Do that 1-2 times a month, all my facebook needs are met.

Yes, but by having a facebook account, all their needs (your entire life) are met too. 1-2 times a month to read random junk from your friends for a lifetime of surveillance capitalism. Good trade off, no?

Re: Why We Disagree with The New York Times

#198

Post by [deleted] »

pishpash wrote: post #120
md224 wrote: post #97

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my impression is that this all comes down to one basic question: Does a Facebook-approved "mobile experience" count as an official FB app or a third-party app? It seems to me that the FB post is trying to frame it as the former, and everyone who's upset is trying to frame it as the latter. Is that what this entire disagreement is about? Because if it is, maybe it would help if we just foc…

Did you consent to anything that Facebook approves when you consented to using Facebook? Did you consent to the transitive property? How does Facebook approving of some obvious third party make the third party not a third party? Approval and third party status are orthogonal.

[deleted]

Re: Why We Disagree with The New York Times

#199

Post by [deleted] »

zzzeek wrote: post #190
smallnamespace wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you distinguish between unethical science and A/B testing, or even just 'We changed our product, then didn't like the results, and changed it back?'

I would assume a core tenet of ethics and deciding if something is unethical is if it has the potential to harm people. Inducing depression to indiscriminate masses is pretty high on the list. It's not valid to compare the emotional impact of Facebook on millions of its addicted users to something like the color of a box of laundry detergent.

[deleted]

Re: Why We Disagree with The New York Times

#200

Post by 794CD01 »

smallnamespace wrote: post #178
zzzeek wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

unethical science does not deserve to be wrapped in its journalistic language in an effort to detach it from the harm it caused, it deserves to be called out for what it actually is, in this case intentional psychological manipulation of people's moods without their knowledge or consent. One does not grasp the true harm caused by unethical experiments by reading only the documented (published or non-published) scient…

How do you distinguish between unethical science and A/B testing, or even just 'We changed our product, then didn't like the results, and changed it back?'

The terms don't apply to the same context. A/B testing is a specific technique (well, not that specific) which can be used to do ethical science or unethical science.
Post reply on HN