Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Zuckerberg: I just shared the following note with our employees

facebook.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 174 posts

Re: Zuckerberg: I just shared the following note with our employees

#101

Post by jacobush »

danlugo92 wrote: post #96
boplicity wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That gets to the heart of the problem, actually. People use Facebook to keep in touch with family and friends, yet Facebook still systematically pushes inflammatory content on them, despite that not being the "reason" people are there. And, eventually, it gets a surprisingly high percentage of people to respond to that inflammatory content, thus furthering the cycle.

FWIW (and it might not be worth much much). I'm from Venezuela and most of my contacts are too. Most content that I would consider "bad" that comes up for people are just memes, and stupid top X/spammy-ish/clickbaity content or recipe videos. Maybe a different algorithm or just network effects?

It could be any number of things - for one there may not be much advertisment spend in your region compared to the US.

Re: Zuckerberg: I just shared the following note with our employees

#102

Post by runarberg »

bagacrap wrote: post #69
greatwhitenorth wrote: post #41

Unless something is illegal, Facebook or any website should allow the content. There will always be people who don't like a person or a viewpoint. It's a slippery slope to start moderating content that is not illegal.

Isn't "slippery slope" considered a logical fallacy? Until fb deletes something and by doing so clearly causes harm to society, let's not assume that any-moderation-whatsoever is evil.

The Cambridge Analytica scandal already proved to be harmful for democracy. False (and illegally financed) advertising on facebook is also believed to have influenced the brexit election enough to swing the vote. The current (lack of/bad) moderation is already causing harm to society.

Re: Zuckerberg: I just shared the following note with our employees

#103

Post by skytreader »

moron4hire wrote: post #37

Delete your Facebook account. Anyone that matters will be able to figure out how to get a hold of you. It might minutely inconvenience you for a week, but you'll be much happier thereafter.

Except a bunch of people who matter to me are not as comfortable with technology as HN's readership and for them the easiest way to get hold of me (or anyone else) is via Facebook.

> Anyone that matters will be able to figure out how to get a hold of you.

I used to think like this in university and even a few years after but having grown my social circle beyond tech, I now find this line of thinking snobbish. On the contrary, since these people matter to me, I don't want them to have to figure out how to get hold of me. There should be a default option to get to me and for most of them that is, unfortunately, Facebook.

Yes email didn't suddenly stop working, IRC is still a thing, there are a lot of other apps out there that respect your privacy, etc., but these people buy the Android phone that fits their budget, sees that FB is installed by default and keeps in touch with that. And the UX of Messenger is just, hands down better and more personal than any email client their phone comes with.

Re: Zuckerberg: I just shared the following note with our employees

#104

Post by nemetroid »

DevX101 wrote: post #66
greatwhitenorth wrote: post #41

Unless something is illegal, Facebook or any website should allow the content. There will always be people who don't like a person or a viewpoint. It's a slippery slope to start moderating content that is not illegal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_T%C3%A9l%C3%A9vision_Lib...

Is this an argument against the parent post? If so, it's not clear what the argument is.

Re: Zuckerberg: I just shared the following note with our employees

#105

Post by abathur »

Kiro wrote: post #14

I'm surprised that the general sentiment on HN right now seems to be that Facebook should act gatekeepers, something that traditionally has been one of the major fears.

This reminded me a little bit of a writing-pedagogy course I took, where we had recurring discussions about the difference between being a gate-way and a gate-keeper.

These discussions circled around the power and responsibility we'd have as instructors to simultaneously help our students obtain the important credential on our side of the gate, and on the other hand to protect the value of that credential.

There wasn't a one-size-fits answer to this question; the point was to make us wrestle with the values involved and come to defensible conclusions. We had to think about what was inside the gate, what was outside the gate, and when it was our responsibility to stand between them.

Unfortunately, it doesn't seem like many people running these platforms (not to point fingers; I was just as blind) realized something like "As a , I want so that ." was missing from their user stories.

Re: Zuckerberg: I just shared the following note with our employees

#107

Post by blondin »

slantedview wrote: post #45
kinkrtyavimoodh wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The vast majority of FB users use it for staying in touch with friends and family. The cynical framing we encounter on HN isn't actually representative of the experience of most FB users.

Just because you haven't been radicalized on FB doesn't mean it's not a real problem.

i find your comment sensible.

there is that podcast called rabbit hole (by nytimes) which was very revealing to me.

i started using youtube before it became a popular platform and never in my life have i ever watched a conspiracy theory video on youtube! i don't think i have ever been recommended one either. i only hear about them in the news.

so hearing that person talk about how youtube recommended videos upon videos to them was really surprising. there were names that i have never even heard of.

so yes, social platforms changing people's view is real and a problem.

Re: Zuckerberg: I just shared the following note with our employees

#108

Post by lazyant »

bagacrap wrote: post #74
lazyant wrote: post #64

> I have confidence in the election integrity efforts we've implemented since 2016. We've played a role in protecting many elections and now have some of the most advanced systems in the world. You have to be f kidding me. Voter suppression (asking for paid fines, takin out poll places in particular communities), gerrymandering, foreign interference etc etc

Heh, what election did FB protect? Which election was more legitimate due to the existence of FB?

Exactly

Re: Zuckerberg: I just shared the following note with our employees

#109

Post by moron4hire »

skytreader wrote: post #103
moron4hire wrote: post #37

Delete your Facebook account. Anyone that matters will be able to figure out how to get a hold of you. It might minutely inconvenience you for a week, but you'll be much happier thereafter.

Except a bunch of people who matter to me are not as comfortable with technology as HN's readership and for them the easiest way to get hold of me (or anyone else) is via Facebook. > Anyone that matters will be able to figure out how to get a hold of you. I used to think like this in university and even a few years after but having grown my social circle beyond tech, I now find this line of thinking snobbish. On the…

It's not snobbish. Your way of thinking is insultingly infantilising.

I'm sorry for the disparity between your post length and mine, but there isn't anything else to say. You view the people around you as fundamentally incapable. "How ever did those poor, stupid assholes figure out how to talk to each other before us technical people came along?"

Re: Zuckerberg: I just shared the following note with our employees

#110

Post by meddlepal »

runarberg wrote: post #97
chrisco255 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is how you moderate your feed on Facebook: if you don't like someone and what they have to say, unfriend them. Problem solved.

My personal feed is not the issue here. The issue is how reactionary material keeps popping up in the feed of people who are susceptible into rallying behind it. The target area is so vast the you are bound to influence a lot of people. And the nature of the material only belonging to personal feeds makes scrutinizing by third parties impossible. All of this culminates into a really dangerous propaganda machine, espe…

> My personal feed is not the issue here. The issue is how reactionary material keeps popping up in the feed of people who are susceptible into rallying behind it.

What you are basically arguing is that people are too stupid to handle free speech.

Post reply on HN