161–170 of 246 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, it's a footgun. Don't even start using FB as an identity provider.
What do you propose instead? And before you answer, consider that many systems only let you sign in with Facebook or Google.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Haha, are you serious? Instagram, WhatsApp, Snapchat... Instagram's Systrom explicitly said that he sold because otherwise Facebook would snuff him away.
Facebook never acquired Snapchat so I'm not sure what you're talking about there. Instagram and WhatsApp have continued to thrive since their acquisition, so from a user perspective nothing really changed, it's not like you need a FB account to use insta or whatsapp.
Much to the dismay of many. Maybe it's the test case FB is monitoring to look how to move ahead with their other acquisitions. Last I heard Quest 2 sales are good..
I think FB has a fundamental issue here, which is that: 1) they don't feel they can NOT police content 2) they are wayyyyy too big to police content manually 3) any AI they train to police content, is not going to be able to state clearly why a given post/account was banned, and anyway... 4) if you state objective, clear rules that are automated, it will be pretty easy to game them (e.g. using euphemisms or code word…
I think FB has a fundamental issue here, which is that: 1) they don't feel they can NOT police content 2) they are wayyyyy too big to police content manually 3) any AI they train to police content, is not going to be able to state clearly why a given post/account was banned, and anyway... 4) if you state objective, clear rules that are automated, it will be pretty easy to game them (e.g. using euphemisms or code word…
I wonder if, I'm next after making https://nomorefacebook.xyz but that's why it's good to export contacts and other data now and not when it's too late. And don't use it as login provider.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> And that AI has feelings Damn, are we really gonna anthropomorphize AI when it's the cause of so much misery already? [1] [1] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/34964830-automating-ineq...
Although currently abstract, I think it's going to be one of the most important ethical questions we face in the future. If we create machines that can suffer, then we've got a profound ethical responsibility to make sure that we avoid this outcome, since the magnitude and duration of that suffering can potentially be much larger than a human's capacity for suffering.
I don't think that's gonna happen. And if it did, it wouldn't be real, and those that think it is are fooling themselves. Only biological organisms feel. Why are you wishing for a cold lump of steel to feel something?
In my mind only someone who struggles severely with emotional intimacy with other humans would want to create a machine that tries to imitate human feelings, and thus ‘suffer’; likely done in an effort to try to feel close to 'it'. It sounds like that person might not be having their human needs for safety, connection and acceptance met, which is very painful. I think tackling this issue is the important and worthy cause. That would be better than spending money on some Hollywood-inspired notion of 'AI' - which itself seems more a story made up to keep the USA spending insane sums of taxpayer money on research, weapons and other tech at DARPA.
I do think society is super alienating to most humans in it's current form [1], so I can somewhat understand the science fiction.
What is your definition of suffering though?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This seems overly glib. Facebook’s monopoly status means it’s necessary for many people. As per the post, if this person were a small business owner, or simply not well-connected elsewhere, this could be both financially and personally devastating. As it is, he’s only protected because he has other access to business and personal pages. One company shouldn’t have this sort of arbitrary power over people’s lives.
I find the idea of Facebook being "necessary" for anyone quite spectacularly laughable. This isn't, air or water. You can live without it, and many people happily do. Facebook is about as essential as essential oils.
Just because something isn't strictly necessary doesn't mean that life can't become difficult without it. The sad fact of the matter is that by cutting off Facebook you're also cutting off the primary way of staying in touch with some people along with things like events and so on. Yes there are workarounds, of course there is but the vast majority of people don't care and can't be convinced to care about the politics and social effects of Facebook's dominant position.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Assuming a user:moderator ratio of 10,000:1, they would need to hire 200,000 moderators to cover their 2 billion users. Then at that scale, they’d need to hire thousands of meta-moderators and meta-meta-moderators too.
If meta moderators are at the same scale then that’s only 200 meta moderators and only 1 meta meta. The base of a log scaling pyramid is approximately as large as the entire pyramid.
I think FB has a fundamental issue here, which is that: 1) they don't feel they can NOT police content 2) they are wayyyyy too big to police content manually 3) any AI they train to police content, is not going to be able to state clearly why a given post/account was banned, and anyway... 4) if you state objective, clear rules that are automated, it will be pretty easy to game them (e.g. using euphemisms or code word…
They certainly generate enough revenue to moderate content manually.
Keep in mind that while a human being is very good at categorizing things, they're terrible at doing it over and over again, so the scarce talents are likely consistency and conscientiousness.
You should expect that, overall, the (n+1)th person you hire is marginally less talented than the nth. And while people are constantly entering and exiting the labor pool, this is negated by the fact that you're trying to expand your share of it.
So while there's a lot of randomness in recruiting, if you enforce any kind of standard, you'll hit a point where not enough candidates meet that standard, so you have to drop it. Once it is below the threshold of "better than AI" you have no reason to hire more people.
And you'll try to expand your eligible pool by raising wages, but everyone else wants consistent, conscientious people, too, so you're liable to run into the economic constraint: the amount you have to pay someone will exceed the value they're adding as a moderator.
Something particularly concerning about this incident is buried further down in the article. Under the heading "Why Facebook Doesn't Ban Everyone", Lincoln explains how social network theory can identify individuals in networks that are influential. This isn't an exaggeration - basic graph heuristics (such as comparing in/out degree of an individual relative to other parts of the social graph) can easily identify suc…
I’m banned from Twitter without explanation. I made an account, followed 3-4 tech celebrities like Paul graham, and posted a single tweet similar to “I finally got pressured into making a dumb Twitter account...” The account got banned for community violations within an hour and my support email said that my requests for support would not be responded to. Years later, I’m working on a video game and I’m worried this…
As your account ages there will be more information about whether you are real or not. Stopping the influx of bots before they do damage is important. Therefore it’s quite likely that Twitter ban accounts early if they look like bots based on not much info (and potentially if they look low value).
You followed a few people who are popular account (not friends, fairly anonymous) but not mainstream accounts (so you’re a little more atypical) and then you post once with, sorry to say it, not particularly inspired/original/specific/human content. Perhaps there were other factors. I’d guess you didn’t go through and fill out your profile much if you weren’t that invested in the idea? No birthday or avatar maybe? Not following the easy setup steps that Twitter encourage you to do?
Combine this looking a little like a bot with the likelihood that you’re going to be low value because you’re not that engaged (debatable I know), and it kinda makes sense.
All speculation, but a possibility. Should Twitter be doing this? I don’t think it’s the worst thing, but it’s a trade off. If this is it then it would imply that your marketing efforts for your game would probably not be affected at all.