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

Facebook executives shut down efforts to make the site less divisive

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 1001 posts

Re: Facebook executives shut down efforts to make the site less divisive

#101

Post by save_ferris »

Zuckerberg’s invincibility as CEO is nothing short of one of the greatest failures of modern capitalism. It’s simply astounding that such a terrible leader has retained control of what is clearly a company out of control. And the market accepts all of it while individuals constantly criticize his and Facebook’s actions.

People always throw around “well stop using Facebook” but that clearly isn’t a reasonable solution from a scalability standpoint. What percentage of those people also hold Facebook stock, either directly or through a hedge fund, ETF, etc.? It could be more than we think.

At the end of the day, profits don’t care about people, and this is the consequence we all have to live with.

Re: Facebook executives shut down efforts to make the site less divisive

#102

Post by jkaptur »

StillBored wrote: post #76
thomasjudge wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems very near the moral vacuity of the "just following orders" defense

For the beta roles (because I can't help mapping wolf/pack behavior to most corp meetings anymore) about all a person can do is mount a weak defense. Which gets ignored by upper mgmt as they justify ASPD with a framework that says the number one priority is the corporate profit statement. What percentage of people in these meetings are so wealthy they can risk everything over morally gray area decisions like this? Fu…

Just so you know, the model of "alpha wolves" is considered simplistic and outdated in the study of actual wolves. Just one link: https://www.nationalgeographic.org/media/wolves-fact-and-fic....

I've found that when people use "wolf pack" (or "caveman times") explanations, what they're actually doing is using social models that (surprise!) reflect the culture that created them: humans in the twentieth century.

Re: Facebook executives shut down efforts to make the site less divisive

#103

Post by 1propionyl »

bpodgursky wrote: post #93
1propionyl wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The East India Trading Company is just an extension of the open seas."

Yes, a company which owns large chunks of India and has a well-used private army numbering in the tens of thousands, is a great analogy for a social-media company. The East India Company was responsible, at least in part, for tens of millions of deaths in various famines, and to equate the two fails both by being ridiculous (Facebook is not a private empire with an empire), and trivializes the actual damage done by t…

In much of South/South-East Asia, for many people, Facebook is the internet. (And remember Facebook Zero? Facebook was aware of and tried to engender this).

https://qz.com/333313/milliions-of-facebook-users-have-no-id...

A staunch defender of the EITC would claim they were "just" engaging in mercantilism and facilitating the exchange of goods, and the war and deaths were just unfortunate side-effects. Facebook is "just" engaging in connecting people and facilitating the exchange of information, and stoking violence and racial conflict are just unfortunate side-effects.

Re: Facebook executives shut down efforts to make the site less divisive

#104

Post by jcims »

umvi wrote: post #57
Hokusai wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Boeing 737 MAX killed 346 people. So, it seems that death is not a deterrent. The mails from the case are good to understand the internal discussions: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/jan/10/737-max-sca...

> So, it seems that death is not a deterrent. Well, the tobacco industry is still alive and well, and those companies literally peddle death.

They peddle a high risk product. So do companies that manufacture motorcycles and parachutes.

Re: Facebook executives shut down efforts to make the site less divisive

#106

Post by abawany »

toshk wrote: post #60
yumraj wrote: post #17

I've always wondered how such discussions go in company meetings where some product/feature has harmful effect of something/someone but is good for the business of the company. I cannot believe that everyone is ethicality challenged, only perhaps the people in control. So what goes through that minds of people who don't agree with such decisions. Do they keep quiet, just worry about the payroll, convince themselves t…

From my experience there are very strong currents in a group that are very hard to go against as an individual. Only very contrarian people will go against the grain in formal meetings with high level executives or other individuals with status in a group. This is why often big organizations are able to produce decisions that the team behind it doesn't agree with and that look silly from the outside. Many people in s…

Also, IME, if you do say something, others jump down your throat quickly and viciously. I still remember this one former cow-orker and his words: 'they debate, they decide, we deliver': this project ended up losing the company millions and left it as a has-been in ecommerce because people chose to accept and support the utter insanity that was going on right in front of their faces.

Re: Facebook executives shut down efforts to make the site less divisive

#107

Post by shadowgovt »

nickff wrote: post #55
Hokusai wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Boeing 737 MAX killed 346 people. So, it seems that death is not a deterrent. The mails from the case are good to understand the internal discussions: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/jan/10/737-max-sca...

> "Boeing 737 MAX killed 346 people. So, it seems that death is not a deterrent." I really don't understand your point, unless you're implying that there was a meeting where Boeing planned to kill those people. I am not an aviation expert, but what happened with the MAX seems to be a product of the certification process, urgent business needs, systems engineering issues, and bad internal communications at Boeing. I h…

It's more that there were several meetings where issues were raised that would kill people if they occurred, and those in charge decided the risk factors were minimal enough that they could execute on the plan.

Nobody planned to kill the astronauts on the Challenger. Such a systemic failure to anticipate and manage risk correctly is a team effort and heavily incentive-driven. Putting incentives in place that reward risk-taking increases the odds someone will die.

Re: Facebook executives shut down efforts to make the site less divisive

#108

Post by nickff »

Hokusai wrote: post #97
nickff wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Boeing 737 MAX killed 346 people. So, it seems that death is not a deterrent." I really don't understand your point, unless you're implying that there was a meeting where Boeing planned to kill those people. I am not an aviation expert, but what happened with the MAX seems to be a product of the certification process, urgent business needs, systems engineering issues, and bad internal communications at Boeing. I h…

> I haven't seen any evidence that someone specifically predicted the chain of events which would unfold on those flights, and clearly communicated the issue, then had executive(s) respond that it was 'worth the money'. People understand the consequences of what they say. I doubt that most people will say that statements out loud, even when they know that are true. But, people knew and money was involved. * February…

I have read similar quotes about most modern aircraft development programs, yet aviation is quite safe. The fact you can find a few alarmists in a company of 160,000 is rather unsurprising.

Those quotes would be much more convincing if those employees put every prediction they ever made on the record, not just the ones that turned out to be sort-of right in hindsight.

From manager's perspective, you can't listen to everyone complaining about being rushed, understaffed, and underfunded (, because everyone looking to cover their butts in a bureaucracy does all three). On the other hand, you have to be on the lookout for credible issues.

Re: Facebook executives shut down efforts to make the site less divisive

#109

Post by badloginagain »

bpodgursky wrote: post #93
1propionyl wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The East India Trading Company is just an extension of the open seas."

Yes, a company which owns large chunks of India and has a well-used private army numbering in the tens of thousands, is a great analogy for a social-media company. The East India Company was responsible, at least in part, for tens of millions of deaths in various famines, and to equate the two fails both by being ridiculous (Facebook is not a private empire with an empire), and trivializes the actual damage done by t…

While I appreciate the invocation of Godwin's law, Facebook is absolutely a private empire with an empire; in context of modern society.

Re: Facebook executives shut down efforts to make the site less divisive

#110

Post by germinalphrase »

lmilcin wrote: post #98

The problem really is platforms that give people content to please them. An algorithm selects content that you are likely to agree with or that you have shown previous interest. This only causes people to get reinforced in their beliefs and this leads to polarization. For example, when I browse videos on Youtube I will only get democratic content (even though I am from Poland). Seems as soon as you click on couple en…

Cynically, very few platforms want you to make your own decisions.
Post reply on HN