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

Facebook's “see no evil” strategy

axios.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 254 posts

Re: Facebook's “see no evil” strategy

#11

Post by throwaway4dang1 »

sp332 wrote: post #7
RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #5

What is also interesting is the motivation of the people wanting to use CrowdTangle, etc to see the list of top posts. My guess, is that it less about learning what is the top post, but more about using that information as a way to try to pressure Facebook to censor content they don't like.

More fundamentally than asking for censorship is holding Facebook accountable for what content they are promoting. They've been caught multiple times allowing Ben Shapiro's page to break the rules that other pages have to follow [0]. They also keep claiming that they don't favor right-leaning content. Maybe this should be regulated or not, but at least we can call them out for lying about it. [0] https://popular.info…

What a trash media outlet.

Btw Shapiro isn't really liked in the MAGA movement, he's considered establishment, a grifter, and a neocon. That being said, nothing he says is bigoted or racist, you just disagree with it. Learn to recognize that and we can all talk like adults again. Shouting racism just divides.

Re: Facebook's “see no evil” strategy

#12

Post by dfadsadsf »

tablespoon wrote: post #4
klausjensen wrote: post #2

Referenced column by Kevin Roose (behind NYT paywall): https://archive.md/As8DH

> The company, blamed for everything from election interference to vaccine hesitancy, badly wants to rebuild trust with a skeptical public.... > These people, most of whom would speak only anonymously because they were not authorized to discuss internal conversations, said Facebook’s executives were more worried about fixing the perception that Facebook was amplifying harmful content than figuring out whether it actu…

The problem is defining harmful content. For some it's china lab theory, for others CRT/anti-racist propoganda or stolen election. What ever FB censures, half the country will be mad at it. FB can't win here.

Personally I think "harmful content" concept is extremely dangerous when applied to social networks. If 5 years ago it was unquestionable that USA has more press and thought freedom than India, Russia or China, the situation now is much more nuanced and really depends on the topic discussed. What it mean for democracy in US long term is a big question.

Re: Facebook's “see no evil” strategy

#13

Post by xmprt »

mullingitover wrote: post #8

I think the real problem that facebook leadership sees isn't that they're amplifying overly partisan posters, but that the popularity of these posters demonstrates that their userbase is increasingly low rent and heading toward an AOL/Yahoo style long goodbye.

Their solution to this is VR which is really smart but who know if it's too little, too late.

Re: Facebook's “see no evil” strategy

#14

Post by MengerSponge »

tablespoon wrote: post #4
klausjensen wrote: post #2

Referenced column by Kevin Roose (behind NYT paywall): https://archive.md/As8DH

> The company, blamed for everything from election interference to vaccine hesitancy, badly wants to rebuild trust with a skeptical public.... > These people, most of whom would speak only anonymously because they were not authorized to discuss internal conversations, said Facebook’s executives were more worried about fixing the perception that Facebook was amplifying harmful content than figuring out whether it actu…

Trustworthiness simply isn't in their corporate DNA.

Zuck: People just submitted it.

Zuck: I don't know why.

Zuck: They "trust me"

Zuck: Dumb fucks.

https://www.businessinsider.com/well-these-new-zuckerberg-im...

Re: Facebook's “see no evil” strategy

#15

Post by the_optimist »

varelse wrote: post #9

I suspect if they provided telemetry into the Facebook Zeitgeist, it would show its userbase to be terrifyingly stupid and superstitious folk on par with the late Carl Sagan's predictions in _The Demon Haunted World_. For IMO the Google Zeitgeist was bad enough 10 years ago in a somewhat simpler time when we could still laugh at stupidity and ludicrous conspiracies, but stupidity is a major influencer on social media…

Please tell us more about how telemetry can reveal the moral and intellectual value of a human being.

Re: Facebook's “see no evil” strategy

#16

Post by mullingitover »

xmprt wrote: post #13
mullingitover wrote: post #8

I think the real problem that facebook leadership sees isn't that they're amplifying overly partisan posters, but that the popularity of these posters demonstrates that their userbase is increasingly low rent and heading toward an AOL/Yahoo style long goodbye.

Their solution to this is VR which is really smart but who know if it's too little, too late.

The VR stuff has the same energy as "The Titanic's crew has announced the installation of an amazing collection of trendy new Louis Vuitton deck chairs with an exciting new arrangement, and insists that the minor iceberg collision will be resolved soon."

Re: Facebook's “see no evil” strategy

#17

Post by heresie-dabord »

tablespoon wrote: post #4
klausjensen wrote: post #2

Referenced column by Kevin Roose (behind NYT paywall): https://archive.md/As8DH

> The company, blamed for everything from election interference to vaccine hesitancy, badly wants to rebuild trust with a skeptical public.... > These people, most of whom would speak only anonymously because they were not authorized to discuss internal conversations, said Facebook’s executives were more worried about fixing the perception that Facebook was amplifying harmful content than figuring out whether it actu…

This passage is a good summary:

"Facebook is not a giant right-wing echo chamber. But it does contain a giant right-wing echo chamber — a kind of AM talk radio built into the heart of Facebook’s news ecosystem, with a hyper-engaged audience of loyal partisans who love liking, sharing and clicking on posts from right-wing pages, many of which have gotten good at serving up Facebook-optimized outrage bait at a consistent clip."

And then there is the advertising profit that these enthusiasts of the absurd generate for the corporation. What former US President DJT called, "the golden goose".

Re: Facebook's “see no evil” strategy

#18

Post by tablespoon »

dfadsadsf wrote: post #12
tablespoon wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The company, blamed for everything from election interference to vaccine hesitancy, badly wants to rebuild trust with a skeptical public.... > These people, most of whom would speak only anonymously because they were not authorized to discuss internal conversations, said Facebook’s executives were more worried about fixing the perception that Facebook was amplifying harmful content than figuring out whether it actu…

The problem is defining harmful content. For some it's china lab theory, for others CRT/anti-racist propoganda or stolen election. What ever FB censures, half the country will be mad at it. FB can't win here. Personally I think "harmful content" concept is extremely dangerous when applied to social networks. If 5 years ago it was unquestionable that USA has more press and thought freedom than India, Russia or China,…

> Personally I think "harmful content" concept is extremely dangerous when applied to social networks.

It's a kludge. The real problem is broadcast technology becoming too easy to access (in the form of social media). It's reduced transmission friction too much, which has seriously undermined the ability of the "marketplace of ideas" to filter the good from the bad. There's a sweet spot between monopolization and total democratization of broadcast technology, and I don't think we're there anymore.

> If 5 years ago it was unquestionable that USA has more press and thought freedom than India, Russia or China, the situation now is much more nuanced and really depends on the topic discussed.

Come on. You could only say such a thing if you're almost totally ignorant of "press and thought freedom" situation in China. About the only thing you can say China is more permissive of than the US is outright racism, and that's only at the social level (you can still legally be a flaming racist in the US, it's just that many people won't want to associate with you and many will remind you you're full of shit). I'm less familiar with Russia and India, but I highly doubt the situations there will salvage your statement.

Re: Facebook's “see no evil” strategy

#19

Post by Miraste »

the_optimist wrote: post #15
varelse wrote: post #9

I suspect if they provided telemetry into the Facebook Zeitgeist, it would show its userbase to be terrifyingly stupid and superstitious folk on par with the late Carl Sagan's predictions in _The Demon Haunted World_. For IMO the Google Zeitgeist was bad enough 10 years ago in a somewhat simpler time when we could still laugh at stupidity and ludicrous conspiracies, but stupidity is a major influencer on social media…

Please tell us more about how telemetry can reveal the moral and intellectual value of a human being.

How could it not? What you click on, what you look at, what you read and for how long, what you write, where you go, what you buy, how you feel, what you like and dislike, who you know, who you talk to, what sites you visit... Facebook knows many of its users (and non-users) better than they know themselves.

Re: Facebook's “see no evil” strategy

#20

Post by samizdis »

There's a piece by Cory Doctorow about this [1], which I found interesting for its expansion into highighting FB's apparent beef with Ad Observer [2]. I also like Doctorow's piece because he used the word "flensed", which I don't think I've seen for years but which, for some reason, I like.

[1] https://pluralistic.net/2021/07/15/three-wise-zucks-in-a-tre...

[2] https://adobserver.org/

Post reply on HN