The resulting culture follows from that, but is reported green upwards.
Facebook and the Normalization of Deviance
31–40 of 62 posts
Re: Facebook and the Normalization of Deviance
#32I think the real problem is that a small set of companies are exercising control over what people see and read. Facebook's censorship (which includes algorithmic timelines, prioritizing some things and censoring others) is an existential danger to the wellbeing of our society. Any organization that can decide what links and text can be shared from neighbor to neighbor or from friend to friend is in a position of mass…
Aren't their algorithms all designed to optimize for engagement? Isn't engagement just the measure of how much time you spend on and interacting with their system? Doesn't that mean that they're not deciding what to keep feeding us, but rather that we are? It seems like what they've done is basically automate, "Give the people what they want.", as it were. We produce the clickbait, we click on the clickbait, then we…
This would be true if everyone were the same. However, the stuff that engages with the median isn't the stuff that engages with everyone.
Their prioritization of popular things means they censor anything not popular by pushing it down the feed, in some cases excluding it entirely.
Not everyone "wouldn't believe what happens next!"
It's pushing people's attention toward median melodrama, and hiding things that involve nuance or anything not engaging, like, for example, announcements of deaths of friends. This would be possibly excusable under your model, but they also censor what links you can share privately with friends in DMs on instagram, whatsapp, and fb messenger.
Re: Facebook and the Normalization of Deviance
#33I think the real problem is that a small set of companies are exercising control over what people see and read. Facebook's censorship (which includes algorithmic timelines, prioritizing some things and censoring others) is an existential danger to the wellbeing of our society. Any organization that can decide what links and text can be shared from neighbor to neighbor or from friend to friend is in a position of mass…
Is that really the problem? When in history did people get their news and information from a large and diverse set of sources? For as long as there's been national news, it's been dominated by a few headline sources. Before that there were lots of local sources, but nobody was reading the local news from both Connecticut and Colorado. I don't know what the difference is today. Maybe there isn't a difference, we just…
Lots of people get information from friends and family and their community directly.
Facebook is now mediating these private communications in DM, and censoring them. There are whole sites you simply cannot link to in DMs to your friends and family.
Re: Facebook and the Normalization of Deviance
#34I think the real problem is that a small set of companies are exercising control over what people see and read. Facebook's censorship (which includes algorithmic timelines, prioritizing some things and censoring others) is an existential danger to the wellbeing of our society. Any organization that can decide what links and text can be shared from neighbor to neighbor or from friend to friend is in a position of mass…
Aren't their algorithms all designed to optimize for engagement? Isn't engagement just the measure of how much time you spend on and interacting with their system? Doesn't that mean that they're not deciding what to keep feeding us, but rather that we are? It seems like what they've done is basically automate, "Give the people what they want.", as it were. We produce the clickbait, we click on the clickbait, then we…
Re: Facebook and the Normalization of Deviance
#35Re: Facebook and the Normalization of Deviance
#36Re: Facebook and the Normalization of Deviance
#37For soldiers and medical personnel there are ethical guidances and law to follow. Why not make one for developers?
Re: Facebook and the Normalization of Deviance
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
Brave post! Seems whenever you imply on HN that developers should follow some code of ethics, and be held responsible for the ethical impact of the systems they make, people look at you like you have a horn growing out of your head. “But what if my manager TOLD me to write that evil code??” “Hey, I’m not making the requirements, I just implement them!” According to a lot of replies you will get, we are just helpless…
I pretty much only log in to make comments like this and the message is well received. We are the ones doing this. Doing something wrong isn't right because someone paid you to. No, it's even worse . It's immoral. I was instructed by management to implement signature fraud into a contract management system for a multibillion dollar real estate brokerage. It was illegal. I refused. They fired me on illegal grounds. I…
Re: Facebook and the Normalization of Deviance
#39I was just thinking the other day about what it must be like to work for Facebook on their security team (I'm in security myself). On an infosec team I have an idea of who the attackers are - there may be multiple, ranging from disgruntled employees to nation states. I think about their incentives, capabilities, and how to reduce risk. At Facebook... I'm working for the attacker. You're protecting users from some set…
Re: Facebook and the Normalization of Deviance
#40I think the real problem is that a small set of companies are exercising control over what people see and read. Facebook's censorship (which includes algorithmic timelines, prioritizing some things and censoring others) is an existential danger to the wellbeing of our society. Any organization that can decide what links and text can be shared from neighbor to neighbor or from friend to friend is in a position of mass…
Aren't their algorithms all designed to optimize for engagement? Isn't engagement just the measure of how much time you spend on and interacting with their system? Doesn't that mean that they're not deciding what to keep feeding us, but rather that we are? It seems like what they've done is basically automate, "Give the people what they want.", as it were. We produce the clickbait, we click on the clickbait, then we…
Not exactly. Think about fast food. You are genetically programmed to enjoy fatty, sugary, salty foods because these were hard to come by back in the day. Now they are easy and companies push them on us, by exploiting this evolutionary development in a harmful way.
Similarly all your social instincts like FOMO are baked in, and Facebook targets them ruthlessly.