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

#841

Post by CaptainZapp » Wed, May 27, 2020, 5:06 AM UTC

guy_ro wrote: post #826

ppalevsky wrote: post #812

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, please do!

Might be a long list. We've got >35,000 people working on safety and security. I expected some challenges recruiting people with all the bad press we got over the last few years, but instead I've seen that talented people eager for a really hard challenge are even more excited to join and wok on this area.

"Might be a long list. We've got >35,000 people working on safety and security. I expected some challenges recruiting people with all the bad press we got over the last few years, but instead I've seen that talented people eager for a really hard challenge are even more excited to join and wok on this area."

I didn't read the article, because paywalled.

So you're implying seriously that 35'000 people are actively involved in such decisions? Really?

Let me wager a guess:

A Google search reveals 44'942 Facebook employees as per December 31 2019.

You're implying here that 78% of all your employees are directly involved in such decisions?

Here's my take. 99.998 % (and yes, the number is pulled out of thin air) of those 35000 people are lowly paid contractors sifting through the horrible crap that some of your users post.

Sure, they're working on "safety and security" in the broadest sense, but are sure as shit far away from any such decisions.

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

#842

Post by monadic2 » Wed, May 27, 2020, 5:06 AM UTC

trisiak wrote: post #538

monadic2 wrote: post #508

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Compare how much money google can make off ads in a month to $15. You’re paying for way, way, way more than just removing ads and it’s obvious

That's why you get other benefits that are much harder to price in.

....and most don’t use or want.

Of course they conveniently only bundle these features so they can pretend it’s what customers want—hell downloading and playing when the screen is off should be a part of youtube. Just another step in the long saga of companies intentionally crippling their own services to bilk customers.

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

#843

Post by choppaface » Wed, May 27, 2020, 5:07 AM UTC

guy_ro wrote: post #823

throwaway77665 wrote: post #797

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This may come off as condescending, but I'm honestly just curious. From the outside looking in, it seems as though you are paid to drink cool-aid and paint FB in a positive light. How does one get to be in your position? What are the qualifications for your job?

Fair enough, but I also get to see first-hand how decisions are made and how rigorous debates take place, so I have more faith in the process. We've got lots to do to improve transparency of how this stuff happens, because I know people care about it. One way we started a while ago is publishing minutes to one of our meetings where decisions on content policies get made. https://about.fb.com/news/2018/11/content-stan…

Can you qualify what you mean by “rigorous” ? I think this is an important point of contention because Facebook is so accustomed to using data to justify decisions. Yet these ethical issues often either have no data and/or the consequences of Facebook’s actions impact users who are not on Facebook. Moreover, the data is not available to the public (despite the public generating the data) so the public can’t actually reproduce the warrant used internally at Facebook. This lack of reproducibility is why I think there’s so much friction around Facebook claiming their decisions are made with “rigor.” Thanks.

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

#844

Post by 616c » Wed, May 27, 2020, 5:08 AM UTC

guy_ro wrote: post #826

ppalevsky wrote: post #812

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, please do!

Might be a long list. We've got >35,000 people working on safety and security. I expected some challenges recruiting people with all the bad press we got over the last few years, but instead I've seen that talented people eager for a really hard challenge are even more excited to join and wok on this area.

So where's that list? I would imagine it is not hard for a company at the size of FB to reliably host a static file of 35000 redacted names. :-)

And my snarky response is inspired largely by what I would call your diversion of a response. To me reads like you are not acknowledging the real answer: no, as FB VP of Integrity I can't and won't provide the list.

Would that have not been easier?

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

#845

Post by BubRoss » Wed, May 27, 2020, 5:08 AM UTC

guy_ro wrote: post #831

beachy wrote: post #783

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just to cherry-pick from your reply here, if $2M is the biggest ticket item you have to show for independent research on this topic - then you're woefully short given Facebook's revenues and size. 10 short years ago, nobody could have imagined that huge swathes of the population could have been swayed to accept non-scientific statements as fact because of social media. Now we're struggling to deal with existential th…

A counter-point to this is that studies show polarization has also fallen in some countries over the past years - including ones where social media (Facebook or otherwise) is popular. Studies also show some of the most polarized segments in the US to be the older population, which uses social media less. We definitely have work to do, but this suggests there are many factors at play.

Are you really trying to take credit for a flimsy correlation between facebook usage and polarization (in some countries, though you didn't say which ones or how many compared to other heavy use countries)

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

#846

Post by hanspeter » Wed, May 27, 2020, 5:11 AM UTC

beachy wrote: post #783

guy_ro wrote: post #758

Hey, Facebook VP of Integrity here (I work on this stuff). This WSJ story cites old research and falsely suggests we aren’t invested in fighting polarization. The reality is we didn’t adopt some of the product suggestions cited because we pursued alternatives we believed are more effective. What’s undeniable is we’ve made significant changes to the way FB works to improve the integrity of our products, such as fundam…

Just to cherry-pick from your reply here, if $2M is the biggest ticket item you have to show for independent research on this topic - then you're woefully short given Facebook's revenues and size. 10 short years ago, nobody could have imagined that huge swathes of the population could have been swayed to accept non-scientific statements as fact because of social media. Now we're struggling to deal with existential th…

> Now we're struggling to deal with existential threats like climate change because a lot of people get their worldview from Facebook

You state this as a matter of fact. How do you know this?

Even if it were to be true, that people were more polarized in the climate worldview by Facebook and more so to the wrong side than the right side, we all know that climate change is the result of our behaviour the last centuries and that counter efforts has been resisted the last 50 years.

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

#847

Post by 5ociety » Wed, May 27, 2020, 5:11 AM UTC

guy_ro wrote: post #758

Hey, Facebook VP of Integrity here (I work on this stuff). This WSJ story cites old research and falsely suggests we aren’t invested in fighting polarization. The reality is we didn’t adopt some of the product suggestions cited because we pursued alternatives we believed are more effective. What’s undeniable is we’ve made significant changes to the way FB works to improve the integrity of our products, such as fundam…

Dear idiot, let me help you. Stop trying to control people. Just stop. You are the anti-christ. Stop trying to social engineer opinions. Stop censorship. Just let people say what they have to say.

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

#848

Post by BubRoss » Wed, May 27, 2020, 5:11 AM UTC

guy_ro wrote: post #823

throwaway77665 wrote: post #797

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This may come off as condescending, but I'm honestly just curious. From the outside looking in, it seems as though you are paid to drink cool-aid and paint FB in a positive light. How does one get to be in your position? What are the qualifications for your job?

Fair enough, but I also get to see first-hand how decisions are made and how rigorous debates take place, so I have more faith in the process. We've got lots to do to improve transparency of how this stuff happens, because I know people care about it. One way we started a while ago is publishing minutes to one of our meetings where decisions on content policies get made. https://about.fb.com/news/2018/11/content-stan…

You didn't answer either of his questions.

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

#849

Post by ppalevsky » Wed, May 27, 2020, 5:14 AM UTC

guy_ro wrote: post #826

ppalevsky wrote: post #812

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, please do!

Might be a long list. We've got >35,000 people working on safety and security. I expected some challenges recruiting people with all the bad press we got over the last few years, but instead I've seen that talented people eager for a really hard challenge are even more excited to join and wok on this area.

How is your success as VP of Integrity measured, as in what are your OKRs or KPIs?

I'm curious at to what you and others in the 35k you mentioned do?

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

#850

Post by BubRoss » Wed, May 27, 2020, 5:14 AM UTC

guy_ro wrote: post #826

ppalevsky wrote: post #812

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, please do!

Might be a long list. We've got >35,000 people working on safety and security. I expected some challenges recruiting people with all the bad press we got over the last few years, but instead I've seen that talented people eager for a really hard challenge are even more excited to join and wok on this area.

Then why did you offer? You aren't confronting anything directly, everything you are saying here is indistinguishable from any other PR agent replying but dodging questions to seem like they are transparent.