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

Chan Zuckerberg Initiative scientists: FB’s practices ‘antithetical’ to mission

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 64 posts

Re: Chan Zuckerberg Initiative scientists: FB’s practices ‘antithetical’ to mission

#31

Post by dmix »

dannyr wrote: post #19
whatshisface wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The newspaper + money + printing costs system has done that for generations. If you want engaging information to stop being spread more than less-engaging information, then you're going to have to come up with a way to stop more engaging newspapers from printing more copies than less-engaging ones.

There is a big difference between a newspaper and Facebook (with over a billion users) spreading misinformation. This is like comparing a match stick to jet fuel.

As long as you never click on a comments button or scroll down on any page, which is basically what Facebook is in reverse.

The comment sections on NYT (apparently the "good" paper) is one of the worst places on the internet. Yet I'm totally okay with it existing because I understand stupid people exist, no matter how much (highly selective) censorship we allow to exist.

Not to mention the serious decline in quality of actual NYT content which seems to select heavily for this commenting audience. I've been reading them for well over a decade and the decline is obvious and full of misinformation daily. There's no winning this fight through letting some random minimum wage moderator FB or Twitter hires, with zero appeals process, or any transparency, and obvious biases, deleting a few articles or comments that offend the type of people who live in the bay area or whatever American city they hire in.

Re: Chan Zuckerberg Initiative scientists: FB’s practices ‘antithetical’ to mission

#32

Post by dannyr »

dmix wrote: post #31
dannyr wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a big difference between a newspaper and Facebook (with over a billion users) spreading misinformation. This is like comparing a match stick to jet fuel.

As long as you never click on a comments button or scroll down on any page, which is basically what Facebook is in reverse. The comment sections on NYT (apparently the "good" paper) is one of the worst places on the internet. Yet I'm totally okay with it existing because I understand stupid people exist, no matter how much (highly selective) censorship we allow to exist. Not to mention the serious decline in quality…

Except that Facebook use algorithms to promote posts to its billion users.

Re: Chan Zuckerberg Initiative scientists: FB’s practices ‘antithetical’ to mission

#33

Post by stanfordkid »

weareconvo wrote: post #28
rmrfstar wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Zuckerberg net worth: ~$78b. Mean US neurosurgeon annual income: ~$600k So Zuckerberg is worth 130K neurosurgeon-years. Neurosurgeons are the highest compensated surgery specialty [1]. In the US there are a total of 50k surgeons of any type [2]. Does anyone think that Zuckerberg created, with his own hands, >=3x the annual economic output of all US surgeons? [1] https://medium.com/nomad-health/complete-list-of-averag…

Every single question of that form is impossible to answer with mere words. Luckily, people CAN answer it through aggregate choice, so we don't have to worry about it. ...but since I feel like taking the bait, something like 9 trillion people use Facebook for at least 36 hours a day, while at MOST 4 people ever even need to consult a neurosurgeon per YEAR. So he's clearly the winner there.

I think there is a different way of looking at it: how replaceable is he and what he has built?

The truth is -- most of Facebook's value comes from network effects, not the actual technology itself. If Mark Zuckerberg never existed, it is highly likely some other platform would have been created -- the knowledge and skillset he has is not that rare. many other platforms existed before Facebook to let you post pictures and chat with friends.

Re: Chan Zuckerberg Initiative scientists: FB’s practices ‘antithetical’ to mission

#34

Post by [deleted] »

weareconvo wrote: post #28
rmrfstar wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Zuckerberg net worth: ~$78b. Mean US neurosurgeon annual income: ~$600k So Zuckerberg is worth 130K neurosurgeon-years. Neurosurgeons are the highest compensated surgery specialty [1]. In the US there are a total of 50k surgeons of any type [2]. Does anyone think that Zuckerberg created, with his own hands, >=3x the annual economic output of all US surgeons? [1] https://medium.com/nomad-health/complete-list-of-averag…

Every single question of that form is impossible to answer with mere words. Luckily, people CAN answer it through aggregate choice, so we don't have to worry about it. ...but since I feel like taking the bait, something like 9 trillion people use Facebook for at least 36 hours a day, while at MOST 4 people ever even need to consult a neurosurgeon per YEAR. So he's clearly the winner there.

[deleted]

Re: Chan Zuckerberg Initiative scientists: FB’s practices ‘antithetical’ to mission

#35

Post by whakim »

whatshisface wrote: post #13
boplicity wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem doesn't have anything to do with policing speech. The problem is the intentional propagation and promotion of inflammatory speech. It is one thing to allow hate speech, it is another to increase it's prominence because it is "more engaging." Facebook does just that.

The newspaper + money + printing costs system has done that for generations. If you want engaging information to stop being spread more than less-engaging information, then you're going to have to come up with a way to stop more engaging newspapers from printing more copies than less-engaging ones.

Yes, newspapers have been printing/selling the equivalent of clickbait and "fake news" for as long as newspapers have been around. People like this and it gets a lot of eyeballs. Newspapers like USA Today/New York Post/Daily Mail etc. do this to at least some degree and do pretty well for it.

That being said, many of the top-circulating newspapers[1] don't trade on simply reporting the "most-engaging" information. People read the WSJ or NYTimes because they're trustworthy and tend to have a high standard of journalistic integrity, deeply investigate issues and challenge powerful interests. (If you don't believe that's true you probably don't read the WSJ or NYTimes, which makes my point for me...)

Facebook and social media in general does the former, not the latter. And then combines it with algorithms that target content at those most likely to be engaged by it, leading to a cesspool of polarization, echo chambers, and inflammatory arguments.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_newspapers_in_the_Unit...

Re: Chan Zuckerberg Initiative scientists: FB’s practices ‘antithetical’ to mission

#36

Post by JamisonM »

dannykwells wrote: post #4

Have any returned the money yet? Until then, well, its just more words.

What is wrong with more words?

Putting your name to something like this is certainly endangering future funding, that seems like more than just "words".

Re: Chan Zuckerberg Initiative scientists: FB’s practices ‘antithetical’ to mission

#37

Post by fastball »

rmrfstar wrote: post #24
RodgerTheGreat wrote: post #3

The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative's mission is to shelter most of Zuck's wealth from taxation while ensuring that he and his wife retain as much control over it as possible. Facebook's negative externalities are orthogonal to this mission.

Zuckerberg net worth: ~$78b. Mean US neurosurgeon annual income: ~$600k So Zuckerberg is worth 130K neurosurgeon-years. Neurosurgeons are the highest compensated surgery specialty [1]. In the US there are a total of 50k surgeons of any type [2]. Does anyone think that Zuckerberg created, with his own hands, >=3x the annual economic output of all US surgeons? [1] https://medium.com/nomad-health/complete-list-of-averag…

Why are you comparing income with net worth?

Re: Chan Zuckerberg Initiative scientists: FB’s practices ‘antithetical’ to mission

#38

Post by nv-vn »

rmrfstar wrote: post #24
RodgerTheGreat wrote: post #3

The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative's mission is to shelter most of Zuck's wealth from taxation while ensuring that he and his wife retain as much control over it as possible. Facebook's negative externalities are orthogonal to this mission.

Zuckerberg net worth: ~$78b. Mean US neurosurgeon annual income: ~$600k So Zuckerberg is worth 130K neurosurgeon-years. Neurosurgeons are the highest compensated surgery specialty [1]. In the US there are a total of 50k surgeons of any type [2]. Does anyone think that Zuckerberg created, with his own hands, >=3x the annual economic output of all US surgeons? [1] https://medium.com/nomad-health/complete-list-of-averag…

When thinking about net worth in equity you have to consider how stocks are valued. He hasn't created the value of that many neurosurgeons, but the market believes that Facebook will create that value in all future earnings adjusted for risk/inflation.

Re: Chan Zuckerberg Initiative scientists: FB’s practices ‘antithetical’ to mission

#39

Post by afarviral »

rmrfstar wrote: post #24
RodgerTheGreat wrote: post #3

The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative's mission is to shelter most of Zuck's wealth from taxation while ensuring that he and his wife retain as much control over it as possible. Facebook's negative externalities are orthogonal to this mission.

Zuckerberg net worth: ~$78b. Mean US neurosurgeon annual income: ~$600k So Zuckerberg is worth 130K neurosurgeon-years. Neurosurgeons are the highest compensated surgery specialty [1]. In the US there are a total of 50k surgeons of any type [2]. Does anyone think that Zuckerberg created, with his own hands, >=3x the annual economic output of all US surgeons? [1] https://medium.com/nomad-health/complete-list-of-averag…

No

Re: Chan Zuckerberg Initiative scientists: FB’s practices ‘antithetical’ to mission

#40

Post by McTossOut »

ryan93 wrote: post #11
bitexploder wrote: post #6

[flagged]

What bad things have happened to the people that submitted that information?

Uh, in order: live in a society bottlenecked through a trashy parasitic exploitative dump of a communications tool, be subjected to psychological experimentation, be in a market where technology is constantly locked away and consuned by behemoth new megalodons whose sole purpose it to appreciate 400% every 10 years, live in a society malleable enough to be purchased, still haven't woken up from the nightmare.
Post reply on HN