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

#361

Post by tantalor » Tue, May 26, 2020, 7:43 PM UTC

ENOTTY wrote: post #302

Here's the paragraph I found most damning. It would make me want to assign liability to Facebook. > The high number of extremist groups was concerning, the presentation says. Worse was Facebook’s realization that its algorithms were responsible for their growth. The 2016 presentation states that “64% of all extremist group joins are due to our recommendation tools” and that most of the activity came from the platform…

You are surprised? Here's the mission statement:

> Facebook's mission is to give people the power to build community and bring the world closer together. People use Facebook to stay connected with friends and family, to discover what's going on in the world, and to share and express what matters to them.

Encouraging group communication is the primary goal, regardless of the consequences.

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

#362

Post by visarga » Tue, May 26, 2020, 7:43 PM UTC

bjt2n3904 wrote: post #90

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 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 mean, it's one thing if we're talking about something like an airbag, where harm can result from normal usage because of a design flaw. It's another thing to talk about the Ford Pinto -- where harm could happen due to accidental misusage.…

> In this instance, I don't think it's fair to say Facebook has a "harmful effect". The abuse, misuse, and addiction to Facebook can be harmful, for sure... but that's not Facebook's fault. That's the end user's fault.

Yeah, it wasn't me who posted this reply, it was the cells in my body. It's their fault... I think complex systems create effects that go beyond the individual parts. Facebook is running and profiting from such an 'effect' on society.

Their right to freely express their creativity by making the feed how they wish should be balanced with the large scale (negative) effects that appear in the system.

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

#363

Post by DavidVoid » Tue, May 26, 2020, 7:44 PM UTC

zelon88 wrote: post #72

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 typically found my employment via companies who deal with a variety of contracts, some of them for weapons or defense contractors. I could go down the rabbit hole of chasing down all those contracts and would probably find that many of the products my company makes get sold to groups and causes that I don't support. But in the end; I've gotta eat. Do I want to throw away my career which is 99% unrelated to the S…

Makes me think of a quote from an old West German anti-napalm film "Nicht Löschbares Feuer" (The Inextinguishable Fire) [1].

"The students of the Harvard University write that I should leave the criminal Dow Chemical Company.

I'm a chemist. What should I do?

If I develop a substance, someone can come and make something out of it. It could be good for humanity, or it could be bad for humanity.

Besides napalm, Dow Chemical manufactures 800 other products.

The insecticides that we manufacture help mankind.

The herbicides that we manufacture scorch this harvest and cause him harm."

[1] https://vimeo.com/107990231

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

#364

Post by goatinaboat » Tue, May 26, 2020, 7:45 PM UTC

ErikAugust wrote: post #269

supernova87a wrote: post #149

I really didn't realize until perhaps the last 2 years that Facebook fundamentally tapped some hidden human need/instinct to argue with people who they believe are incorrect. Specifically, and more importantly, combined with the human inability to actively decide to not pay attention when things are inconsequential or not yet worth arguing about. Sometimes, just shutting up about an issue and not discussing it is the…

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…

think it’s important to note that Facebook didn’t invent any of this

I think that’s literally true. They told their algorithm “maximise the time people spend on Facebook” and it discovered for itself that sowing strife and discord did that.

Facebook’s crime is that when this became obvious they doubled down on it, because ads.

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

#365

Post by majewsky » Tue, May 26, 2020, 7:46 PM UTC

visarga wrote: post #275

pathseeker wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

That's a learned behaviour - to ignore opposing arguments. They train themselves to counter arguments they don't like with their own prefabricated arguments, learned from the mass media. Like, for example: politician X is corrupt, he was caught taking bribes. Counter: everyone is stealing, at least his party gives our group more benefits than the other party.

"Everyone is stealing" is actually a rational counter when grounded in sufficient truth. It's depressing, sure, but it can be rational.

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

#366

Post by scollet » Tue, May 26, 2020, 7:47 PM UTC

CivBase wrote: post #285

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…

What really scares me is how many people I know who acknowledge that platforms like Facebook and YouTube are designed to create echo chambers which tend to distort people's opinions and perceptions towards extremes... but still actively engage with them without taking any precautions. They know it's bad for them, but they keep going back for more.

Having awareness probably means they can engage in a meaningful way. Some degree of maturity and critical thought are required to dam up invaluable media. It's something akin to junk food; junk media.

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

#367

Post by specialist » Tue, May 26, 2020, 7:47 PM UTC

ErikAugust wrote: post #269

supernova87a wrote: post #149

I really didn't realize until perhaps the last 2 years that Facebook fundamentally tapped some hidden human need/instinct to argue with people who they believe are incorrect. Specifically, and more importantly, combined with the human inability to actively decide to not pay attention when things are inconsequential or not yet worth arguing about. Sometimes, just shutting up about an issue and not discussing it is the…

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…

Facebook, and others, absolutely innovated with their recommendation engines. Enabled by implementing the most detailed user profiling to date coupled with machine learning.

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

#368

Post by pjc50 » Tue, May 26, 2020, 7:48 PM UTC

gonehome wrote: post #356

cataphract wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I think abortion is a lot easier when you frame the argument around suffering. I think part of the problem with abortion is the left argues that "it is not a life" which is generally a weak argument. It's better to accept/concede that you are ending life, but doing so without suffering before there's a neural net that can recognize anything - I think that's the important bit (and why third trimester abortions are ban…

Suffering matters - of the mother. The death in hospital of a woman who was denied an abortion was the catalyst for the successful campaign in Ireland to get the constitution changed to permit abortion.

#repealthe8th

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

#369

Post by obi1kenobi » Tue, May 26, 2020, 7:49 PM UTC

obi1kenobi wrote: post #355

neonate wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Updated: https://archive.md/FyTDB

Wow, Cloudflare's 1.1.1.1 DNS server sets up a man-in-the-middle (broken cert gives it away) and serves a 403 Forbidden page when clicking on this link. Verified that 8.8.8.8 works fine.

Posted as a Tell HN, to avoid derailing this post's discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23315640

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

#370

Post by pdonis » Tue, May 26, 2020, 7:49 PM UTC

cataphract wrote: post #327

pathseeker wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

> Studies on persuading people out of prejudice

The GP is not talking about prejudice; he's talking about a genuine difference in priorities. Calling that "prejudice" implies that one of those choices of priorities is simply wrong; it ignores the possibility that there is no one "right" choice of priorities.