Facebook executives shut down efforts to make the site less divisive • Hacker News Board

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

#321

Post by dghughes » Tue, May 26, 2020, 7:20 PM UTC

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. :-)

I've been doing that more recently too. I say to myself do I really want to do this? Or why am I getting involved in this? Especially Twitter where you can't unselect yourself from a conversation.

My new mantra is the saying, "not my circus, not my monkeys".

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

#322

Post by darkengine » Tue, May 26, 2020, 7:21 PM UTC

pathseeker wrote: post #265

gonehome wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is generally helpful to keep in mind. I also think there’s an art to deescalation and discussing ideas or persuading someone you disagree with to see an alternative view (and then giving them space to change their mind). Productive discussion isn’t possible with everyone or even one individual depending on where they are in their life, but I’ve generally found it works better than expected when you can r…

>I also think there’s an art to deescalation and discussing ideas or persuading someone you disagree with to see an alternative view This doesn't really work with core views like politics. Some of the most polarizing topics are not because the opposite side can't see your view, it's because you fundamentally disagree on priorities. Examples: Anti-abortion people aren't going to be persuaded by yet another view on wom…

Sadly, I think you are right. All reasoning starts with postulates that you cannot prove. For ethics and politics, these axioms are our emotions and values. Two people who have a different set of values can't have a logical argument because they're using entirely different systems of reason.

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

#323

Post by not2b » Tue, May 26, 2020, 7:21 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #147

crazygringo wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I cannot believe that everyone is ethicality challenged No, but it's not always clear what the ethical choice is. In philosophy, this is known as pluralism [1] -- the fact that different people have irreconcilable ethical views, with no way to find any "truth". That might seem like a lot of justificatory mumbo-jumbo, but there are genuine ethical arguments on all sides. For example, did you know that in the postwar…

> For example, did you know that in the postwar 1950's, the lack of polarization and divisiveness in American society was widely seen as a major problem, because it didn't provide enough voter choice between the two parties? There was not a lack of polarization and divisiveness in American society . The divides in American society and politics didn't map well to the two major political parties because there was a maj…

In the 50s and 60s, there were really four parties, joined into two by coalitions. On the Democratic side, there was a social democratic, leftist faction, tensely allied with a Southern party (the Dixiecrats). On the Republican side, there was a pro-corporate but moderately liberal faction (the Rockefeller Republicans) allied with a harder-line conservative/liberatarian faction (the Goldwater Republicans).

Two things happened in the 60s and early 70s: the Goldwater faction largely took power in the Republican Party, and because the Democratic Party embraced civil rights, the Dixiecrats first flirted with independence (George Wallace's campaign) and then gradually switched parties, so now we have the oddity that there are people who fly Confederate flags but are registered members of the party of Lincoln. Many people who would have been Republicans in the old days are now the moderate/neoliberal faction in the Democratic Party.

So we still have four parties, they were just reshuffled. Now the tension in the Democratic Party is between the old FDR/LBJ new deal supporters, and their younger socialist allies, and the more pro-business neoliberals. On the Republican side it's between the business side (they don't care much about ideology, they just want to make money) and the hard-core conservatives.

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

#324

Post by banads » Tue, May 26, 2020, 7:23 PM UTC

jimmaswell wrote: post #188

They decided against paternalistic meddling and let discourse happen naturally? That sounds best to me. I don't want Facebook to be a school teacher hovering over a lunch table to make sure nobody swears. People posting "divisive" content is far preferable to the alternative.

If FB wanted to "let discourse happen naturally" and not be paternalistic, they wouldn't use an opaque, non-chronological algorithm to control who gets to see what in such a way that primarily benefits FB's bottom line.

What is this alternative you speak of?

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

#325

Post by specialist » Tue, May 26, 2020, 7:24 PM UTC

ShellfishMeme wrote: post #307

mark-r wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is definitely such a need, which is why this cartoon is one of my favorites of all time: https://xkcd.com/386/

I always have to think about that one when I had just been spending 20 minutes trying to formulate an elaborate response to someone's comment, just to proceed to sigh and close the thing without posting it. Probably most of the time it was for the better too.

I'm self culling a lot more too. I'd argue those unposted drafts are still valuable, if only to help oneself flesh out ideas.

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

#326

Post by AlexandrB » Tue, May 26, 2020, 7:25 PM UTC

carapace wrote: post #283

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 cannot believe that everyone is ethicality (sic) challenged... Why not? Ockham's Razor says to accept the most parsimonious explanation, and I think that's it. I mean look at little kids: they're amoral monsters. If they weren't so cute our species would have gone extinct ages ago. Look at our methods to train ourselves to be better people: religions cause wars while "Wolf of Wallstreet" is a big hit. ($392 milli…

The Wolf of Wallstreet was a scathing critique of capitalist excess. To think otherwise is to consider a lifestyle where your wife hates you and you crash your car on quaaludes because you've got nothing better going on glamorous.

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

#327

Post by cataphract » Tue, May 26, 2020, 7:25 PM UTC

pathseeker wrote: post #265

gonehome wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is generally helpful to keep in mind. I also think there’s an art to deescalation and discussing ideas or persuading someone you disagree with to see an alternative view (and then giving them space to change their mind). Productive discussion isn’t possible with everyone or even one individual depending on where they are in their life, but I’ve generally found it works better than expected when you can r…

>I also think there’s an art to deescalation and discussing ideas or persuading someone you disagree with to see an alternative view This doesn't really work with core views like politics. Some of the most polarizing topics are not because the opposite side can't see your view, it's because you fundamentally disagree on priorities. Examples: Anti-abortion people aren't going to be persuaded by yet another view on wom…

Studies on persuading people out of prejudice do exist (see e.g. https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~broockma/kalla_broockman_reduc... ). The problem is that the approaches are not as emotionally satisfying as just affirming your moral superiority and calling people bigots, so not many people do it (though some do, search for "deep canvasing").

Abortion is tricky because once you recognize the life of the embryo as a value to protect it's difficult to have it come as less compelling than a right to bodily autonomy. Still, most anti-abortion people would still carve out a lot of exceptions (rape, genetic problems, danger to the mother's life and so on). Most people recognize that the even right to life is not absolute (another example: they would agree it would be unlawful to refuse to obey an order in time of war that would almost certainly result in a soldier's death).

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

#328

Post by paublyrne » Tue, May 26, 2020, 7:26 PM UTC

pathseeker wrote: post #265

gonehome wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is generally helpful to keep in mind. I also think there’s an art to deescalation and discussing ideas or persuading someone you disagree with to see an alternative view (and then giving them space to change their mind). Productive discussion isn’t possible with everyone or even one individual depending on where they are in their life, but I’ve generally found it works better than expected when you can r…

>I also think there’s an art to deescalation and discussing ideas or persuading someone you disagree with to see an alternative view This doesn't really work with core views like politics. Some of the most polarizing topics are not because the opposite side can't see your view, it's because you fundamentally disagree on priorities. Examples: Anti-abortion people aren't going to be persuaded by yet another view on wom…

You're right on an individual level, but when you extrapolate a less argumentative approach and encourage curiosity rather than beligerence I do believe society overall is amenable to change. On a macro scale it works. I'm loath to point to abortion specifically as in the example as it's a devisive issue but Ireland which voted to allow abortion two years ago in a landslide referendum is an example of society changing its views as a whole, even while some individuals in that society remain immovable.

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

#329

Post by iliekcomputers » Tue, May 26, 2020, 7:26 PM UTC

cryptoz wrote: post #196

renewiltord wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I, too, agree. Facebook is just an extension of the open society.

Facebook admits to doing large-scale emotional manipulation of its users. They published a 'scientific' paper where they showed that they tried and succeeded to make 1 group depressed (hundreds of thousands of people), and 1 group feel happier (also hundreds of thousands of people). They psychologically manipulate people into depressions, on purpose . Facebook is not "just" an extension of open society. Facebook is a…

Could you link said paper?

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

#330

Post by stanleydrew » Tue, May 26, 2020, 7:27 PM UTC

cryptoz wrote: post #288

ErikAugust wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it’s important to note that Facebook didn’t invent any of this. They just built the biggest mainstream distribution channel to do so. Nothing they ever did in terms of facilitating pointless arguments has been all that original either. People have been doing this forever, and even on the Web much, much longer than Facebook has existed. Now that said, they know what they have on their hands and how it makes th…

> I think it’s important to note that Facebook didn’t invent any of this. I don't agree with that. I very strongly think that Facebook did invent a lot of this. > They just built the biggest mainstream distribution channel to do so Scale does matter though. There is a lot in life that is legal or moral at small scale but illegal or immoral at large scale. Doing things at scale does change the nature of what you are d…

> I think it's super dangerous to take this new kind of mass-surveillance and mass-scale manipulation and say, welp, nothing new here, who cares?

If that's the outcome you're concerned about I think it's legitimate. I don't think it's parent's intention to encourage apathy though.

However even if unintended, it's a good reminder that we should all watch out to not fall into that apathy trap.