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

431–440 of 603 posts

Re: Mark in the Middle

#431

Post by will4274 »

sagichmal wrote: post #204
xienze wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What in the world are you talking about? The whole reason Democrats are going on and on about this election year appointment is because they wanted to fill Scalia's seat in 2016 and Republicans held all the chips and said "nah, we're gonna wait until after the election." Don't take my word for it, look at what Hillary Clinton said: > The Republicans in the Senate and on the campaign trail who are calling for Justice…

> Yes of course there's a "you're being hypocritical" angle to everything, That's the only angle! Democrats absolutely would not have blocked Scalia's replacement for a year, and even if they had, they would absolutely not have ignored the precedent they set and did the opposite thing now. This level of naked malevolence is exclusively the domain of the Republicans. And so _of course_ the Democrats should pack the co…

> they would absolutely not have ignored the precedent they set and did the opposite thing now

The same Democrats who filibustered other federal judges for years under Bush and then removed the filibuster under Obama to prevent Republicans from doing the same?

On this topic (judges) in particular, the examples of partisan hypocrisy are obvious, for those familiar with the history.

Re: Mark in the Middle

#432

Post by ntsplnkv2 »

notacoward wrote: post #389
ntsplnkv2 wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we don't understand how something works and it seems to be causing negative effects perhaps we shouldn't be using said algorithms in the largest social network.

I'm not actually going to disagree with that. It's a perfectly valid point of view. However, I will also add this thought, which I also expressed internally. Neutrality doesn't just happen. No matter how neutral a system it is at one point in time, people will continue gaming it and it will cease to be neutral. There must be continuous active response to maintain that neutrality. This is a lesson Google learned with…

> Neutrality doesn't just happen. No matter how neutral a system it is at one point in time, people will continue gaming it and it will cease to be neutral. There must be continuous active response to maintain that neutrality.

This is a scary thought - an algorithm that "decides" what neutral is, and pushes all its users towards its predetermined neutrality.

All of this talk is nonsense if we can't define neutral - which we can't. If Facebook is going to be an arbiter of that, they need to be responsible for the content because they choose what content is shown and when - if it was just a timeline feed, they would bear no responsibility.

Facebook wants to make all the money and not scare off customers - a clear conflict of interest.

Re: Mark in the Middle

#433

Post by isoprophlex »

ant6n wrote: post #369
dimgl wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're actually advocating for censorship on a global scale. We've truly regressed.

Uh no. Changing the algorithms to not push you into filter bubbles isn’t censorship.

This is exactly the point I'm trying to make.

Downvoters: please explain why censorship would be identical to moving feeds away from filter bubbles.

Re: Mark in the Middle

#434

Post by _qulr »

scsilver wrote: post #403
_qulr wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From what I've seen, I don't think $5K per year is a big chunk of a Facebook engineer's compensation. In any case, the bigger issue is that this situation exposes how utterly dependent these engineers are on their employer, not just for money but for basic life functionality. Only a tiny number of companies in the world offer this level of "service" to employees. What happens if and when they no longer work at Facebo…

I think thats an unfair, and frankly agist extrapolation. I can cook for myself every day and there is plenty of inefficiency in that action. Its wasteful, the food isnt as good as a professional, I have to shop and waste gas, I have to pay retail pricing. Or I could use the shared resource thats done professionally and efficiently. We are engineers, are we not programmed to reduce complexity and waste. I dont think…

> I think thats an unfair, and frankly agist extrapolation.

Is it ageist to point out that Facebook is ageist in its hiring and operations? Or that Facebook encourages its employees to be overly dependent on Facebook?

What some would view as a "perk" — the company providing every meal — others would view as a downside. What if you prefer to be home and have meals with your family?

"A major sell to candidates is our office perks include free food"

"with work from home, we’ve lost a huge financial part of our package"

For those who prefer not eating meals at the office, how fair is it that this is considered a significant perk of Facebook employment? I'd say that whole thing could be considered kind of ageist. It's certainly highly unusual, compared to most other workplaces in the world.

You mentioned "inefficiency", but it seems that efficiency is ruling out relationships with people outside of work. ;-)

Re: Mark in the Middle

#435

Post by arrosenberg »

grawprog wrote: post #203

So, facebook employees are mad they're not allowed to censor things they disagree with that people post on facebook? I don't understand how facebook came to be responsible for policing political opinions anyway. In fact, I don't understand why employees at tech companies believe they have the right to police people's opinions period. I see it amongst commenters here too. What gives any of these people the right to po…

I think Facebook has created this problem for itself in a lot of ways. They're dependent on a two generations of people who are trending populist (in either a liberal or conservative direction), and thus they're going to feel more empowered to organize in the workplace to effect political change.

Facebook has also lobbied super hard to maintain their status as the private regulators of two extremely large social media platforms and a social messaging platform, representing a substantial percentage of the US and global population.

Facebook has also insisted that it is a public square and platform for free speech, but Groups, algorithmic content, and an extremely successful paid advertising model have made that claim specious at best. In the public square, everyone gets to shout equally - sure some will have a slightly larger crowd, but it will be difficult to monopolize the attention of the entire square. Facebook's model necessarily advantages some speech over others, and can be influenced by money both directly and indirectly.

I agree everyone should have the right to their opinion, and no one should be able to enforce their opinion on another at the barrel end of a gun. Facebook has created a position where they (1) have the right, as a private company to censor their users; (2) as a "public square" (if you subscribe to that) they have a moral obligation not to censor their users; (3) a business model that benefits from promoting some speech over another; and (4) employees who can see the effect of this model, and disagree with it morally, socially, etc., and have no other means of redress.

Re: Mark in the Middle

#436

Post by slg »

FillardMillmore wrote: post #375
slg wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>My biggest fear is that state actors will inject information designed to polarize us, and that we'll respond exactly as they want. Are you being facetious with this? This has been a long documented behavior of Russia. The future you fear is already here.

Most modern states with the necessary capabilities spread disinformation to other countries for their own political gain or the political gain of their allies, Russia is far from the only one.

Fair, but Russia is the most direct example of the specific fears mentioned in spreading disinformation with the goal of polarization as opposed to a different specific goal. When the US spreads propaganda in a foreign country, it is usually to get the people to align with US values as opposed to a goal of destabilization.

Re: Mark in the Middle

#437

Post by notacoward »

ntsplnkv2 wrote: post #432
notacoward wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not actually going to disagree with that. It's a perfectly valid point of view. However, I will also add this thought, which I also expressed internally. Neutrality doesn't just happen. No matter how neutral a system it is at one point in time, people will continue gaming it and it will cease to be neutral. There must be continuous active response to maintain that neutrality. This is a lesson Google learned with…

> Neutrality doesn't just happen. No matter how neutral a system it is at one point in time, people will continue gaming it and it will cease to be neutral. There must be continuous active response to maintain that neutrality. This is a scary thought - an algorithm that "decides" what neutral is, and pushes all its users towards its predetermined neutrality. All of this talk is nonsense if we can't define neutral - w…

> if it was just a timeline feed, they would bear no responsibility.

Did that work for Twitter? They've hardly been immune from criticism either, despite being ~1/10 the size of Facebook and being favored by the ruling party in the US. Chronological timelines aren't silver bullets. They're only chronological among that which is shared and there are still huge differences in how much content gets shared/like/retweeted/whatever. Those are the differences that people will exploit, leaving things only "neutral" in a narrow technical sense that has nothing to do with effect. It's naive in the extreme to think they actually solve the problem.

Re: Mark in the Middle

#438

Post by ntsplnkv2 »

notacoward wrote: post #437
ntsplnkv2 wrote: post #432

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Neutrality doesn't just happen. No matter how neutral a system it is at one point in time, people will continue gaming it and it will cease to be neutral. There must be continuous active response to maintain that neutrality. This is a scary thought - an algorithm that "decides" what neutral is, and pushes all its users towards its predetermined neutrality. All of this talk is nonsense if we can't define neutral - w…

> if it was just a timeline feed, they would bear no responsibility. Did that work for Twitter? They've hardly been immune from criticism either, despite being ~1/10 the size of Facebook and being favored by the ruling party in the US. Chronological timelines aren't silver bullets. They're only chronological among that which is shared and there are still huge differences in how much content gets shared/like/retweeted…

I think you are quite misunderstanding the point.

My point isn't that a chronological timeline fixes the problem of social media. My point is that if you are going to decide what is shown, you are making a choice, and should be responsible for that choice. It is no longer just the user's post - because you control its avenue, you are responsible for it and how it spreads, and becomes "your" speech, in this case, the algorithm's, and its company's.

Re: Mark in the Middle

#439

Post by starkred »

shadowgovt wrote: post #394
starkred wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Hypothesize a machine that allows you to change people's emotions directly, one that has seen mass adoption. There absolutely are such machines and we call them computers. > Should people be allowed to install it? Communication is the powerful 'technology' that changes people's emotions directly. The mode of communication is a side-note. Tear down FB and none of this goes away - not because something rises from FB'…

Computers and face-to-face communication aren't quite there. I'm hypothesizing a machine that hits the emotional center with no intermediary. We don't have any technology in the real world that can do that yet (good art can approximate it, and good advertising can be very manipulative, but neither squirt neurotransmitters directly into your cerebral cortex of fire electrical impulses straight into your amygdala). Thi…

That is a much more interesting question than I originally thought!

You can plug into a happy room surrounded by your family and friends and it will be as though you are all together instead of thousands of miles apart. You can spend time with the children you miss, the grandchildren you hardly know, and it all comes for free.

You know that there will be commercials, of course, but that doesn't worry you too much. So what if every so often a handsome man comes in and tells you how delicious Coca Cola is? You've been around commercials before, you don't expect this time it will be much different.

But there are darker agencies at work. They suss out facts about your life, your joys, your fears, and they prey on them.

If you are a left-leaning person in a blue state they fill you with horror stories of religious fanatics who are determined to create a theocracy.

If you are a right-leaning person in a red state, they tell you of radicals who want to take away everything you've worked for and destroy everything you believe in.

It fits so neatly into what you already suspect that you never question it. Each new story becomes more and more outrageous, but you are a boiling frog at this point, you'll believe anything about 'the other side' no matter how outlandish.

So now you are a tool, a soldier, a person who can be manipulated in any way to support any cause as long as you believe that you are standing up to 'them'.

If it's not a PKD story, it should have been.

Should it be 'allowed'? I'll have to think on it.

Re: Mark in the Middle

#440

Post by kwistzhaderach »

Akronymus wrote: post #383
ikiris wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's hard when people want liberal things like sources or data to back up "facts"

Even then, they only ever want one side to provide sources and even if you do, they often outright ignore it/say its not valid.

Yeah lmao bring up crime statistics, gender differences etc. and Reddit goes wild
Post reply on HN