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

Mark in the Middle

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 603 posts

Re: Mark in the Middle

#81

Post by notacoward »

coldcode wrote: post #16
roenxi wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Although a follow up would be the comforting level of maturity in Facebook's leadership, acknowledging that it isn't their role to bring politics into the workplace. It is distressingly refreshing to see a company in the news for taking a stance like "In my work with Joel, I’ve found him to be ... very rigorous and principled in his thinking [and therefore I'm happy to work with him despite being a Republican]". It r…

Nothing remarkable in a company that makes lawnmowers. Facebook is a company that uses its power to change what people think because so many view it as a source of truth. Doing it for money, or doing it for power, is essentially the same thing. If you are in position to manipulate the truth for benefits to you or your friends in high places you will, and he is. If I worked at Facebook and felt the CEO was twisting tr…

> Facebook is a company that uses its power to change what people think

I don't think that's a helpful way to look at it. Facebook is a platform that other people use to change what people think, and that's dangerous enough. Without any ill intent whatsoever from Facebook itself, that still creates serious issues with unintentional bias (e.g. via algorithms trained with poor data sets) and manipulation. Those are the problems we most need to address, because the number and power of people trying to manipulate Facebook from outside totally dwarfs the ability of anyone inside - including Mark - to do so even if they all wanted to. Framing it as "Facebook and all of its employees are evil" doesn't solve anything, and wouldn't even if it was true.

Re: Mark in the Middle

#82

Post by nabla9 »

henearkr wrote: post #39
nabla9 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personifying moral decisions is the wrong approach nine times out of ten. Incentives and structures are more important than the character of the people or business plans. Neither company (nor any big public company) chooses principles when it would lose them large sums of money. Both Google and Facebook sell adds but they do it differently. Facebook is in business where the gravity constantly pulls towards the type o…

I am not really personifying it besides the introductory line: I am explaining that the mechanism is that Google cares foremost about attracting and retaining a somewhat socially and ecologically responsible (one could say as well leftwards as a synonym) staff. The fact that elite scientists and engineers are leaning to the left is a demographics fact, not some opinion from me. And it can even been explained by how t…

My argument was that "Google cares foremost" relevant to Facebook only as far as their business allows it, just like Facebook. There may be small percentage of something else but it's the main explanation.

This was my main criticism. What is your response to that?

Re: Mark in the Middle

#83

Post by henearkr »

nabla9 wrote: post #82
henearkr wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not really personifying it besides the introductory line: I am explaining that the mechanism is that Google cares foremost about attracting and retaining a somewhat socially and ecologically responsible (one could say as well leftwards as a synonym) staff. The fact that elite scientists and engineers are leaning to the left is a demographics fact, not some opinion from me. And it can even been explained by how t…

My argument was that "Google cares foremost" relevant to Facebook only as far as their business allows it, just like Facebook. There may be small percentage of something else but it's the main explanation. This was my main criticism. What is your response to that?

FB could have taken the same stance than Google about carbon-neutrality targets.

It could have also pledged to not data-mine user DMs.

It did not.

Re: Mark in the Middle

#84

Post by SiempreViernes »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #42
SiempreViernes wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who are these people they "serve"? Surely you don't imply that Facebook is a user driven website? One look at how they handle UI changes tells you that any claims to "serve" the users is extremely hollow.

UX / look and feel is one of those things where a company cannot win; ANY change, especially redesigns, will cause friction with their customers. Ask people what they want with the UI and you get either small pet peeves (but none of them statistically significant), but generally a "leave it as is" answer. Even though the current version may not tick all the boxes from the company's point of view - things like engagem…

> Even though the current version may not tick all the boxes from the company's point of view

Sure, clearly the company is not primarily serving the users. So the question is, who are these people that Mark is invoking?

Re: Mark in the Middle

#85

Post by taylodl »

loxs wrote: post #35
C1sc0cat wrote: post #21

He is Fucked if Biden wins - and I suspect the dual stock structure used to maintain control might get looked at by the SEC. The Board need to tell him " Go, get you out! Make haste! Ye venal slaves be gone! So! Take away that shining bauble there, and lock up the doors. In the name of God, go!"

As an outsider (from a different continent), it doesn't seem at all likely that there is a chance for Biden winning. It probably looks the same from where Zuck is sitting. We might, of course, both be wrong :)

FWIW here's my take:

- No one voting for Hillary in 2016 is voting for Trump in 2020

- People voting for Gary Johnson or Jill Stein in 2016 are either not voting or voting for Biden in 2020

- Democrats who didn't vote in 2016 out of protest for Bernie Sanders not getting the nomination are either not voting again or they're voting for Biden in 2020

- People who voted for Trump in 2016 fall into three camps: they're either voting for Trump in 2020, voting for Biden in 2020, or not voting at all.

All in all it looks like Biden is going to get more votes than Hillary did in 2016 and Trump is going to get fewer votes than he did in 2016. Trump's incredible campaign gaffe in Minnesota has cost him that swing state and is swinging the rest of the swing states of the U.S. Midwest, which is where I live, to Biden.

Bottom line - Biden's path to the White House appears to be less shaky than Trump's path to the White House. However, Trump has made comments indicating that he's willing to make this election cycle very ugly and we may be looking at our first non-peaceful transition of power in American history.

I'm no political science expert or anything, that's just how things appear to me.

Re: Mark in the Middle

#86

Post by roenxi »

pjc50 wrote: post #68

> "In my work with Joel, I’ve found him to be ... very rigorous and principled in his thinking [and therefore I'm happy to work with him despite being a Republican]" The set of people for whom this is true is shrinking by the day; remaining Republican requires an increasingly bizarre set of intellectual contortions. For example, you'd have to believe that appointing a Supreme Court justice right at the end of your te…

The Republicans, being politicians, lied about their motives in 2015 by reflex. Nobody was ever fooled by what they said - what they believe, as evidenced by their actions, is the best option is for them to choose who is on the court. That doesn't require any intellectual contortions to understand or support for Republican voters.

It isn't like the Democrats would behave much differently. There is no way Trump would have gotten any Supreme Court appointments with a Democrat Senate had they got a controlling vote in 2018 and a vacancy arisen. Any candidate would have been declared a raping bigot and the investigations would stretch out until around 3 days after a Biden inauguration. Incidentally, that was probably the strategic plan behind the Kavenaugh business; if they'd delayed the process until after the November election there was a real chance he could have been entirely borked.

It is routine politics. Distasteful, naked self interest, low on scruples. But nothing special to the Republican party.

Re: Mark in the Middle

#87

Post by _qulr »

Politics aside, many Facebook employees come across as rather childish, incapable of taking care of themselves. The big complaint is about lack of snacks! Zuck has to scold them by asking rhetorically whether they joined the company for the free food. And one employee asks if they can go live on an island by themselves, apparently like Lord of the Flies.

Of course one may fairly ask whether Facebook's hiring process produced this result. The staff skews... young. As an outsider, I get the sense that Facebook is more like a college dorm than a workplace. No coincidence I guess that Facebook started in a college dorm.

Re: Mark in the Middle

#88

Post by verdverm »

taylodl wrote: post #85
loxs wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As an outsider (from a different continent), it doesn't seem at all likely that there is a chance for Biden winning. It probably looks the same from where Zuck is sitting. We might, of course, both be wrong :)

FWIW here's my take: - No one voting for Hillary in 2016 is voting for Trump in 2020 - People voting for Gary Johnson or Jill Stein in 2016 are either not voting or voting for Biden in 2020 - Democrats who didn't vote in 2016 out of protest for Bernie Sanders not getting the nomination are either not voting again or they're voting for Biden in 2020 - People who voted for Trump in 2016 fall into three camps: they're e…

Your first point is off, people have switched camps to the right since last election, despite how hard this may seem to believe. They look at how childish the left has become and have decided the right is less evil.

Re: Mark in the Middle

#89

Post by zimpenfish »

yomly wrote: post #72
zimpenfish wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do not confuse disagreeing with someone as that person being morally sub-human If your disagreement with that person is about whether someone else is considered less of a human than they are (by dint of race, wealth, sexuality, whatever), it's probably ok to consider them morally bankrupt on that basis.

A lot of the developing world are still deeply homophobic. Are all those people morally bankrupt and unworthy of a place in the hallowed gardens of equality? Maybe a point of view is crafted through a life's worth of conditioning and experience. We seem comfortable accepting that fact when considering social conditioning over other issues, but when it comes to conservatism we draw the line - they are the evil others.…

> Are all those people morally bankrupt and unworthy of a place in the hallowed gardens of equality?

I would say that places in the "hallowed gardens of equality" are for those who believe in equality, not those who consider any set of other people as lesser.

> and in doing so force the other group to take a side.

No-one forces anyone to be racist, homophobic, etc.

> have had their own life circumstances shape their views.

That sounds like the "economic anxiety" excuse for racism.

Re: Mark in the Middle

#90

Post by charlesu »

yomly wrote: post #72
zimpenfish wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do not confuse disagreeing with someone as that person being morally sub-human If your disagreement with that person is about whether someone else is considered less of a human than they are (by dint of race, wealth, sexuality, whatever), it's probably ok to consider them morally bankrupt on that basis.

A lot of the developing world are still deeply homophobic. Are all those people morally bankrupt and unworthy of a place in the hallowed gardens of equality? Maybe a point of view is crafted through a life's worth of conditioning and experience. We seem comfortable accepting that fact when considering social conditioning over other issues, but when it comes to conservatism we draw the line - they are the evil others.…

> I have a lot of family who have views which would terrify liberals, but I know these people are also not evil but just have had their own life circumstances shape their views.

Like what? What life experiences have shaped their views to make them terrifying to liberals? I'm genuinely curious because the people most likely to have actual lived experiences to support "views which would terrify liberals" are generally liberal and live in cities while those who have "views which would terrify liberals" don't generally have very many relevant lived experiences to speak of.

Post reply on HN