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

#851

Post by pwdisswordfish2 » Wed, May 27, 2020, 5:14 AM UTC

throwaway77665 wrote: post #797

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…

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?

Remember that VPN app that Apple pulled from the app store, the one that Facebook was using to spy on users' internet usage to gain intel about potential competitors. When Facebook acquired the VPN app this guy came with the purchase. VP of Inegrity. Oh, the irony.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onavo

Another commenter noticed this first but the comment is buried at the bottom of the thread. You have to enable showdead to see it. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23319381

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

#852

Post by sudoscript » Wed, May 27, 2020, 5:16 AM UTC

guy_ro wrote: post #814

alpacaillama wrote: post #799

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you care to post the same stats but updated for 2020 then? Also i see that this is statement is also copy pasted on your twitter so I have a hard time believing you actually do read this feedback and didn’t just post This comment as damage control.

Hi! I am really here, not a bot :) If we're talking metrics, the 64% stat cited in the article turns out not to be a good way to measure impact of recommendations on an extremist group. We internally think about things like prevalence of bad recommendations. More on prevalence here - https://about.fb.com/news/2019/05/measuring-prevalence/ . I don't have a metric I can share on recommendations specifically but you can…

You deny the statistic in the article. Then you use corporate speak like "we internally think about things..." Then you link to a blog post titled "Measuring Prevalence", which doesn't have a single data point with a number in it. Not to mention that it's another mess of CorpSpeak that sounds like a PR committee wrote it, not a human being.

The problem is not your intentions. It's clear that you actually want to engage people, given that you're replying actively on this board, even to impolite comments. The problem is the style of communication. It sounds constructed, artificial, developed through a process, like you and a bunch of people are sitting there drafting replies and tweaking until you have something that won't come back later and bite you in the butt. The problem with that strategy is that you end up saying very little of meaning at all.

So maybe to make things more concrete - is there a statistic on measuring the impact of recommendations that you do agree with that you can share?

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

#853

Post by 1123581321 » Wed, May 27, 2020, 5:21 AM UTC

BubRoss wrote: post #848

guy_ro wrote: post #823

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

His work history is on LinkedIn. VP Integrity is essentially an executive product management role so qualifications would be along those lines.

Edit: LinkedIn says he was an engineering manager, then took a series of roles culminating in a data startup that got him into Facebook in the current role.

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

#854

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

sneak wrote: post #562

dleslie wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a thought-provoking answer, and it shows how Facebook (and others) are straddling the line between publisher and platform. IMHO, because they do perform curation, both algorithmic and manual, they should be considered publishers.

Seems to me that their argument against censorship should be even stronger, then, as editorializing is protected expression.

It would be, yes, and if Trump acts on his threats to investigate censure on social media then this may be a good position to take.

The problem is that being a publisher brings greater legal liability for the content that they publish; whereas as carrier/platform can wash their hands of the data that they transmit and claim that they have no part of it.

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

#855

Post by TeMPOraL » Wed, May 27, 2020, 5:29 AM UTC

solveit wrote: post #741

CuriousSkeptic wrote: post #734

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Spotify is reliant on copyright exclusions to keep competing free services at bay. So aren’t really providing any value. YouTube is still reliant on ads, and ad-funded content creators, and will continue serving you manipulative content wether you pay or not. So can’t really count that as a success either. The thing is when you remove the ugly side of those business what remains can bee done better for free using p2p…

> The thing is when you remove the ugly side of those business what remains can be done better for free using p2p networks or federation over open protocols. Then why hasn't it happened?

Because the ugly side of those businesses remains.

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

#856

Post by themacguffinman » Wed, May 27, 2020, 5:35 AM UTC

throwaway2048 wrote: post #716

themacguffinman wrote: post #644

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But everybody doesn't pay for Facebook, and the reason they don't do so is because Facebook is funded by ads and no one has paid for a Facebook without ads. But sure, Facebook might hypothetically still have ads if users paid, and my grandmother might hypothetically be a bicycle if she had wheels.

Facebook's purpose of existence isn't for somebody to "pay for it". Facebook's purpose of existence is to make money.

And the way they make money is by someone paying for it. Some sites collect payments from users directly. Facebook collects payments from advertisers because most users wouldn't use Facebook if they had to pay for it.

Do you have a point? This reads like an unfinished thought.

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

#857

Post by dlivingston » Wed, May 27, 2020, 5:41 AM UTC

5ociety wrote: post #847

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.

Your comment appears to be in violation of the HN guidelines and is at risk for being removed [0]. Please refrain from personal attacks.

[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

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

#858

Post by rajacombinator » Wed, May 27, 2020, 5:55 AM UTC

throwaway77665 wrote: post #797

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…

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?

“Sheryl, I need a guy I can sacrifice next time SHTF. I’m not going to another congressional hearing.”

“Let me make some calls.”

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

#859

Post by mola » Wed, May 27, 2020, 5:56 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…

Well, when your management has such a record regarding their own integrity why on earth would you expect us "dumb fucks", as Zukerberg put it, to trust you? Facebook has lied again and again, took any shady approach to get data, mishandle that data, practically endorsed a genocide. What integrity are you talking about?

You maybe serious about your job, but you work for people that proved they have no moral compass. I'd quit if I were you and actually believe in what you try to accomplish.

Edit: just realized you are the founder of onavo, a spyware bought by facebook. Were you also heading project atlas? Were you responsible for inviting teens to install spyware so you can collect all their data?

The mere fact YOU are chosen as VP of integrity just says it all. When the head of integrity is a spyware peddler... Well....

Yeah, I guess it's a cynical move I should've expected of Facebook.

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

#860

Post by knzhou » Wed, May 27, 2020, 5:56 AM UTC

neilk wrote: post #540

knzhou wrote: post #457

The degree to which “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” is in effect here is remarkable. If Facebook literally removes anything, then HN is outraged because it’s censorship, paternalism, all that. But if Facebook does not adopt an actively paternalistic attitude where it shows people content that they deem is “good for them” , then that’s outrageous too. Both complaints predictably rocket to the top of HN. Which…

Facebook is sometimes in a difficult position. But, with respect, I don't think it's correct to say that it's the fault of their critics for putting them in a dilemma. Facebook does not face outrage for "literally remov[ing] anything". In the real world, Facebook is removing thousands of items every day, maybe tens of thousands. Most of them are totally justified. Is HN outraged about that? Also, keep vs. remove is a…

> But personally, I think that calls into question whether Facebook or anything like them should even exist.

The fundamental problem with Facebook is that it serves the people, and as a rule, we are too reactive, too judgmental, too ignorant, too emotional, too irrational, and too hateful. If you want to find something bad on Facebook, you will succeed, because everybody is there, and this is just how we are. Turn back the clock and you'll find ethnic hatred spread through private Whatsapp messages, bullying on Myspace, ignorance in chain email, disingenuous appeals to emotion in yellow journalism, and hysteria in a mob whipping itself into a lynching frenzy in a literal public square. The platforms have changed hundreds of times, the people have not.

What amazes me is that critics of social media don't see this -- despite their vaunted liberal arts degrees, they act as if Zuckerberg invented human flaws in 2004, and pretend that he has the power to get rid of them with a technological solution. Destroy Facebook tomorrow, and the people will just move somewhere else. The exact same problems will reappear, because the people are the same.