Facebook asks for a moat of regulations it already meets • Hacker News Board

Re: Facebook asks for a moat of regulations it already meets

#271

Post by tripzilch » Thu, Feb 20, 2020, 4:25 PM UTC

wolco wrote: post #196

raziel2p wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If facebook only shows content you agree with, it's creating social bubbles where everyone is cheering each other on and criticism is not allowed, and you end up with anti-vax groups. And if facebook emphasizes content you engage with (albeit negatively), you end up with anecdotes like yours. Facebook is a tool, use it as such rather than being entitled and feeling disempowered. You can hide people from your timeline…

Entitled is a loaded word. That makes it seem like the user is unreasonable and he should take whatever facebook gives him. Be quiet you don't matter, you are lucky they allowed you on the platform. Is it unreasonable to expect facebook to be able to determine the tone of the conversation. They probably already do this or are in the process of researching this. This is a great feature and I look forward to getting co…

> Be quiet you don't matter, you are lucky they allowed you on the platform.

That's actually the feeling I get from YouTube when you try to Like a video when not signed in: "Like this video? Sign in to make your opinion count." -- I always found it mildly condescending.

Re: Facebook asks for a moat of regulations it already meets

#272

Post by tripzilch » Thu, Feb 20, 2020, 4:36 PM UTC

mgraczyk wrote: post #250

josephg wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On what basis are you claiming that that most teams at FB are optimising the product for well being as opposed to ‘engagement’ (addiction)? Do you have first hand knowledge? Do you know the people involved? Do you have citations? I stopped using FB a few years ago after I had an argument with a friend on the platform. The algorithm decided to keep showing us one anothers’ content - I assume so we would both write mor…

I'm not disagreeing with your point that FB sometimes ranks content more highly when it is likely to increase engagement at the expense of your long term happiness and continued use of the site. The point I am making is that FB is well aware, doesn't want that, and devotes far more resources to fixing it than to increasing "engagement". Also "engagement" is not the same as addiction. People who follow more close frie…

> Also "engagement" is not the same as addiction.

Agreed, but the point is that FB's algorithm optimizing for "engagement" is in fact also optimizing for addiction[0]. And so are many others of a certain type of industry that includes YouTube, FB, Instagram, etc. It's not quite social networks, but a common factor seems to be that they're ad-funded and highly automated.

[0] and I believe it is currently way beyond our state of the art to design an algorithm that does not have this unwanted property.

Re: Facebook asks for a moat of regulations it already meets

#273

Post by JangoSteve » Thu, Feb 20, 2020, 4:39 PM UTC

fooker wrote: post #238

c22 wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I haven't used Facebook in a couple years but mbasic.facebook.com used to let you see your messages.

It still does

Thanks! I had no idea.

Re: Facebook asks for a moat of regulations it already meets

#274

Post by justapassenger » Fri, Feb 21, 2020, 3:49 AM UTC

sprafa wrote: post #264

justapassenger wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is a very simple solution to Facebook - demand that they offer compatibility through an API so that other products can offer News Feed products that are seamlessly integrated with the FB Friends. Allowing tons of third parties to access all your data. That’s for sure going to solve all the problems (and Facebook had same idea few years ago, that brought you Cambridge Analytica scandal)

No that’s not true at all but sure. The problem with Analytica is it was done without your knowledge as a user. If you had volunteered to share tour data with CA how is that is that different from sharing it with Google or Instagram or any other service? We pick services to use in exchange for data everyday. Why is it different if Facebook has access to your data from any other service? You just pick one. Anyway this…

Main issue with CA wasn’t that it got data of users of an app - people have explicitly gave consent for it. They scraped data of your friends, that shared this data with you, and made it a big deal. Users explicitly granted access to data, but their friends didn’t. If you have an open API between networks, how is that different?

User A uses app X and shares data with user B. User B uses app Y. App Y is scraping data. They now have data of both user B (which expressed consent) and user A (which didn’t). It’s exactly like Cambridge Analitica.

Re: Facebook asks for a moat of regulations it already meets

#275

Post by KorematsuFred » Fri, Feb 21, 2020, 5:23 AM UTC

contravariant wrote: post #105

harikb wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I am pretty sure similar criticism has be forced on TV, Cellphones, Comic books and what not. No, there is a shit load of difference. It is far more costly to spread misinformation through those other channels. Sure nation-states and tv/cable-companies with agenda will still exist, but ordinary citizen like me, with an agenda, won’t be able to anonymously spread conspiracy theories for $100 ~ $1000

Although oddly it seems that the most egregious violations were done by people with quite a bit of money. It's debatable whether it is a level playing field or a lack of it that's problematic.

> egregious violations

We feel that way because rich people operate at scale and poor people steal candy from 7/11. Level playing field is a myth it will never exist anywhere ever.