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

371–380 of 1001 posts

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

#371

Post by zachware »

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…

This is quite possibly the most elegant summary of what's wrong with how we engage with information through the media/social landscape.

We didn't evolve as a species to process this much information, or as Yuval Noah Harari calls it in Sapiens, gossip.

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

#372

Post by jgunsch »

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.

I believe like this is due to Archive rejecting Cloudflare, not the other way around.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19828317

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

#373

Post by datalus »

derg wrote: post #182
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…

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 learned this lesson recently, and I am sure I will continue to learn this lesson in the future as I've already learned it in the past. Just in many different contexts and ways!

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

#374

Post by pdonis »

gonehome wrote: post #304
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…

I disagree on this - I have a more optimistic view of the ability for people to change how they think. You're right that a core belief tied into someone's identity is not going to be changed by new evidence, unless you can get people to value trying to figure out what's true and updating on evidence itself (rather than having an 'answer' already and just using motivated reasoning to come up with arguments that suppor…

> unless you can get people to value trying to figure out what's true and updating on evidence itself

What evidence could you give to disprove the belief that abortion is murder? The belief is not a claim about evidence; it's a claim about priorities, as the GP said. Or, if you like, about what actions count as belonging to what categories.

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

#375

Post by wuliwong »

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…

From my own experience, I've had many many many conversations regarding topics like this that haven't changed my views in any substantial way. BUT, I have had a handful that did and those are so valuable that I think they it IS worth banging our heads into each other's walls most of the time for these rare moments.

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

#376

Post by zachware »

fpgaminer wrote: post #299

You know what the internet needs? User agents. We've got this idea stuck in our heads that only the website itself is allowed to curate content. Only Facebook gets to decide which Facebook posts to show us. What if, instead, you had a personal AI that read every Facebook post and then decided what to show you. Trained on your own preferences, under your control, with whatever settings you like. Instead of being tuned…

The risk is that it behaves like a reinforcement learning algorithm which essentially rewards itself by making you more predictable, I'd argue that's what curated social networks do today.

If you're unpredictable you're a problem. Thus, it makes sense to slowly push you to a pole so you conform to a group's preferences and are easier to predict.

A hole in my own argument is that today's networks are incentivized to do increase engagement where a neutral agent is in most ways not.

So perhaps the problem isn't just the need for agents but for a proper business model where the reward isn't eyeball time as it is today.

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

#377

Post by selimthegrim »

asveikau wrote: post #74
danharaj wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you describe capitalist processes, some people take it as if you are making a morally charged argument.

I think there is a crowd that kneejerk downvotes ideas they interpret as anti-capitalist, without reading the argument. An example: I am not a Marxist. But I think the Marxist question of "surplus value" as an ethical question is relevant and interesting. I pointed it out on HN a few times. Again, without being a Marxist, just intellectually curious. Nobody ever asks me if I am really a Marxist. I get downvoted prett…

I don’t ask people if hey are really Marxists because when I have in the past I get accused of “pigeonholing” their idea(s)

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

#378

Post by tstrimple »

mark-r wrote: post #280
Vysero wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Close your eyes, hold your breath and hope the situation resolves itself, that's your solution? I don't believe in a: "hidden human need/instinct to argue with people". There is nothing hidden about human conflict. It is as natural as any conflict; as natural as space and time. In fact, without conflict evolution can not exist. Obviously, a good portion of the arguments being had have the potential of bearing no frui…

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

Where do you draw the line between someone on the internet "being wrong", and someone on the internet spreading dangerous misinformation? Sure, walking away from the first is often a good course of action, but what about the second?

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

#379

Post by carapace »

AlexandrB wrote: post #326
carapace wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I didn't see it. All I know about it comes from Christina McDowell's open letter:

https://www.laweekly.com/an-open-letter-to-the-makers-of-the...

> Your film is a reckless attempt at continuing to pretend that these sorts of schemes are entertaining, even as the country is reeling from yet another round of Wall Street scandals. We want to get lost in what? These phony financiers' fun sexcapades and coke binges? Come on, we know the truth. This kind of behavior brought America to its knees.

My point is that we did find it entertaining to the tune of $0.4B, and that doesn't bode well for our general level of moral development.

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

#380

Post by majewsky »

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.

"Thank you for consulting us so extensively. After long deliberation, we've decided to move ahead with the implementation to meet Q4 targets."
Post reply on HN