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

211–220 of 1001 posts

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

#211

Post by qzw »

torben-friis wrote: post #38
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…

I've been there, obviously not to the level of a facebook board member. IMO the feeling is not really that different from making choices as a consumer ("was this shirt made by child labor?", "was the animal this meat comes from treated humanely?", etc). People tend to turn a blind eye to those questions unless something comes up that hits close to home. To be clear, I'm not saying that's justifiable or a good mindset…

I think what an FB exec is trying to decide is more analogous to "should we use child labor to make our shirts?" or "should we incur higher costs to run a humane farm?"

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

#212

Post by jointpdf »

vtail wrote: post #100

Disclaimer: I started working at FB recently. Consider the following model scenario. You are a PM at a discussion board startup in Elbonia. There are too many discussions at every single time, so you personalize the list for each user, showing only discussions she is more likely to interact with (it's a crude indication of user interest, but it's tough to measure it accurately). One day, your brilliant data scientist…

No. To me, all recommendation engines should be:

- User-configurable and interpretable: Enable tuning or re-ranking of results, ideally based on the ability to reweight model internals in a “fuzzy” way. As an example, see the last comment in my history about using convolutional filters on song spectrograms to distill hundreds of latent auditory features (e.g. Chinese, vocal triads, deep-housey). Imagine being able to directly recombine these features, generating a new set of recommendations dynamically. Almost all recommendation engines fail in this regard—the model feeds the user exactly what the model (designer) wants, no more and no less.

- Encourage serendipity: i.e. purposefully select and recommend items that the model “thinks” is outside the user’s wheelhouse (wheelhouse = whatever naturally emerging cluster(s) in the data that the user hangs out in, so pluck out examples from both nearby and distant clusters). This not only helps users break out of local minima, but is healthy for the data feedback loop.

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

#213

Post by taurath »

LordHumungous wrote: post #33

> Facebook policy chief Joel Kaplan, who played a central role in vetting proposed changes, argued at the time that efforts to make conversations on the platform more civil were “paternalistic,” said people familiar with his comments. I think Joel was right.

Isn't it preferable to be somewhat paternalistic when you have paternal amounts of power over your userbase? Its not like giving up the power is on the table.

There is of course the well documented problem of moderation - it inevitably turns into an issue of a subset of the users vs the moderators. Facebook gets by pretending to be neutral "platform providers", but they actively optimize for their benefit. They are about as neutral as a bathtub salesperson on water heaters.

This whole idea that they don't have control only has the ability to stand based on the indifference of its users. I can only hope it eventually falls and the next grand experiment in mass social interaction is a lot more gentle for society.

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

#214

Post by _2d30 »

DSingularity wrote: post #162
NoodleIncident wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> some product/feature has harmful effect of something/someone but is good for the business of the company If you start with such black-and-white assumptions, you will never be able to actually empathize with those people. Nothing is that simple when you're close enough to see the details. Things good for the company should be and frequently are good for the people using the product. The same thing can also harm the…

People are more isolated in the real world? Please provide a source. Aside from the fact that this is hard to measure now that the underlying medium has itself been modified — I would hardly expect this to be the case. Online I am connected to those whom I socialize with or am otherwise professionally connected to. In the “real world” this constraint is largely absent.

I highly doubt you and I are socially or professionally connected and yet here we are.

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

#215

Post by jcims »

jonny_eh wrote: post #118
jcims wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> parachutes Parachutes kill people? I thought they do the opposite. Maybe firearms or alcohol make better examples.

The habitual use of any of the above will increase your chances of untimely death.

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

#216

Post by asdff »

lmilcin wrote: post #134
alittletooraph wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with you but this is an incredibly hard problem to solve. How are you going to get your friend to engage with videos that are in direct opposition to her world views? Recommendations are based on what she actually clicks on, how long she actually watches the videos, etc. And from the business perspective, they're trying to reduce the likelihood that your friend abandons their platform and goes to another one…

A start would be to recognize that businesses are not allowed to exploit this aspect of human nature because the harm is too great to justify business opportunity.

We need to regulate this industry very badly

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

#217

Post by derg »

seek3r00 wrote: post #201
derg wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In general and not necessarily related to just facebook, but one of the best things I've come to learn about myself and the world around me is that sometimes the absolute _best_ thing you can do for yourself is to just shut up and walk away, even if you know in your heart of hearts that you are correct.

I agree, as long as you can find time to research and understand if you’re really correct. This way you avoid conflicts but you still learn if you were wrong.

100%. Some of my biggest learning experiences were when I walked away when I thought I was completely, utterly correct only to find out a little later that I was actually completely wrong!

I say that in the past tense just because it makes in terms of what I'm trying to convey but it still routinely happens too, and will continue to happen.

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

#218

Post by 1propionyl »

smhinsey wrote: post #192
vtail wrote: post #100

Disclaimer: I started working at FB recently. Consider the following model scenario. You are a PM at a discussion board startup in Elbonia. There are too many discussions at every single time, so you personalize the list for each user, showing only discussions she is more likely to interact with (it's a crude indication of user interest, but it's tough to measure it accurately). One day, your brilliant data scientist…

This is why the liberal arts are important, because you need someone in the room with enough knowledge of the world's history to be able to look at this and suggest that maybe given the terrible history of pseudo-scientifically sorting people into political categories, you should not pursue this tactic simply in order to make a buck off of it.

Agreed. Engineers have an ethical duty to the public. When working on software systems that touch on so many facets of people's lives, a thorough education in history, philosophy, and culture is necessary to make ethical engineering decisions. Or, failing that, the willingness to defer to those who do have that breadth of knowledge and expertise.

I'm reminded of this article:

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/11/progr...

"The term is probably a shortening of “software engineer,” but its use betrays a secret: “Engineer” is an aspirational title in software development. Traditional engineers are regulated, certified, and subject to apprenticeship and continuing education. Engineering claims an explicit responsibility to public safety and reliability, even if it doesn’t always deliver.

The title “engineer” is cheapened by the tech industry."

"Engineers bear a burden to the public, and their specific expertise as designers and builders of bridges or buildings—or software—emanates from that responsibility. Only after answering this calling does an engineer build anything, whether bridges or buildings or software."

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

#219

Post by ok_coo »

brewdad wrote: post #195
derg wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In general and not necessarily related to just facebook, but one of the best things I've come to learn about myself and the world around me is that sometimes the absolute _best_ thing you can do for yourself is to just shut up and walk away, even if you know in your heart of hearts that you are correct.

I've gotten better, over time, at typing my heated, emotional response to someone online and then hitting Cancel or the back button and not posting. Sometimes I do hit the Reply button though. I still have room for self-improvement. :-)

This is the point I got to when I realized I should no longer have an account and I just went ahead and deleted it.

For about 6 months after, I thought I would reactivate and jump back in but it's been years now and I'm 100% sure it was a life improvement.

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

#220

Post by colinmhayes »

dd36 wrote: post #178
vtail wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They did as you say (you are a PM, after all!), and next week they rolled out the "likelihood of engagement" model. An independent analysis by another team member, familiar with the old model, confirmed that it was still mostly driven by politics (there is nothing much going on in Elbonia, besides politics), but politics was neither the direct objective not an explicit factor in the model. The observed behavior is th…

We used newsgroups and message boards long before Facebook. They weren’t as toxic, I’m assuming due to active moderation. The automated or passive or slow moderation is perhaps the issue.

I think they weren't as toxic because content creators didn't realize divisive content drives much more engagement. It's not about moderation, it's a paradigm shift in the way content is created.
Post reply on HN