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

81–90 of 254 posts

Re: Facebook's “see no evil” strategy

#81

Post by thereisnospork »

AlexandrB wrote: post #69
thereisnospork wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think what a person reads has no predictive value on their 'moral value'? (An admittedly vague term) Trivially: someone who reads NRA's weekly newsletter religiously is more likely to be pro gun, pro republican, and pro 'life', for instance

This kind of thinking completely discards the concept of intent. People read things for all kinds of reasons. I have a family member who was an avid reader of the "Weekly World News", yet he did not believe in aliens, "Bat Boy", or the illuminati. I used to regularly read conservative blogs and listen to Fox News to keep up with what people I disagree with are doing/saying. So the problem is that you can make some st…

You need to define a confidence interval for 'know'. We as a society judge and condemn people without 100% certainty as a matter of course. Both at a personal level and systematically, e.g. the judicial system.

To your example of BMI, it would be a perfectly reasonable public health policy[0] to use machine learning to probabilistically identify persons of an excess BMI to send them pamplets and resources for weight loss / exercise. Will the odd fit person get a letter from the surgeon general telling them "being a fatass is bad for their health"[1]? Of course. I don't see why that is a terminal problem.

[0]If a bit creepy for the privacy aspects - which are out of scope here.

[1]In far more words than is necessary, of course

Re: Facebook's “see no evil” strategy

#82

Post by bruiseralmighty »

wwweston wrote: post #29
dfadsadsf wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

What a lot of people mean by "Harmful content" isn't opinions and discourse on whether something is good or bad. Harmful content is disinformation about what something is. It's a concept that can be abused for certain, and I suppose that makes it dangerous. Unfortunately, there's also dangers in not intervening. Every space in which valuable discourse takes place has to take some form of order including restraint ser…

> Harmful content is disinformation about what something is.

This is the crux of the issue. Legacy institutions are used to determining what is true and therefore what is inside the bounds of allowable opinion.

This was their domain for decades but it can now be seriously challenged by relatively few people due to the amplification in sharing of human thought through the internet.

Their degradation was the only outcome likely from networking so many individuals together.

'Disinformation', even if you are inclined to trust legacy institutions, should be viewed with a healthy degree of skepticism. Even if we grant that legacy institutions always had the closest approximation reality over the past several decades (and this is generous).

Everyone should now be able to recognize these players for what they are: self interested actors bending public perception of reality to convenient conclusions for their own benefit. Given this, it is not surprising that people are more motivated than ever before to uncover past warpings of past narratives. They are searching for their historical moment.

Now we can grant that it may be best to have these legacy institutions looking out for our interests rather than some unknowable future state of governance. But checking their past conduct is a textbook littered with dark chapters that is now being viewed with the understanding that these are the rosier sections. Not a good look. As we move forward in time the failings of existing governments will only become more apparent not less; and it will continue to make less and less sense to believe in them.

The alternative to this would be to either restrict information flow to some pre-digital age or to perpetuate totalitarian regimes in charge of protecting their own existence by manipulating the masses into passivity.

And here is the second crux, it is only the legacy institutions from the 20th century who are perpetuating the conflict. Were the doubters given license to control their own territory, we have every indication that they would leave the past well enough alone and forge ahead. But the 20th century just cannot let go its dreams of total domination of thought and reality.

Re: Facebook's “see no evil” strategy

#83

Post by seppin »

cs702 wrote: post #80
heavyset_go wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they truly, sincerely, earnestly believe there is no evil to be seen, or if there is any evil, they truly, sincerely, earnestly believe they can subdue it with great engineering and great management. That's hard to believe when they've responded to international catastrophes that they had a role in like this[1], and admitted this themselves[2]: > Facebook admits it was used to 'incite offline violence' in Myanmar […

My perception is that they think they can "fix" these horrifying problems with cleverer software, better policies, and new procedures without negatively altering or impacting the giant gush of money that flows into the company every day.

They can't. There is a direct line between the coercive brand of discourse they promote and higher engagement/ad revenue.

Re: Facebook's “see no evil” strategy

#84

Post by seppin »

war1025 wrote: post #44
eggsmediumrare wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one is talking about censoring arguments about what constitutes reasonable levels of immigration, or whether the government is spending too much, or what rights states should have vs federal gov. IE conservative policy positions. The divide is on topics like anti-vax, nonexistent election fraud, et cetera. IE, actual lies.

> The divide is on topics like anti-vax, nonexistent election fraud, et cetera. IE, actual lies. It's funny that the party of "my body my choice" is so against people wanting a say over what goes into their bodies. I am personally vaccinated, but I think it's reasonable to let individuals make that choice. Also regarding election fraud, when on election night you see charts like [1] with enormous one party spikes, it…

[dead]

Re: Facebook's “see no evil” strategy

#85

Post by ipaddr »

stouset wrote: post #74
Auracle wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a weird argument to make when the lab leak “conspiracy” was censored the same way. Also, there was election fraud. There always is. Was it enough to turn the election? Who knows. To say that people shouldn’t be able to discuss it is mind-boggling to me. The only way we can have trust in our election process is if we can ask questions.

> To say that people shouldn’t be able to discuss it is mind-boggling to me. This is a wild misrepresentation of the opposing perspective. Nobody is arguing that we can't discuss election fraud. The argument—which I'm sure you are actually aware—is that there needs to be some level of credibility to the idea that a) fraud occurred, and b) that it happened in meaningful quantities before we spend significant time, cos…

Stopping people talking about election fraud because you don't feel a certain credibility has been granted is censorship.

Whatever gatekeeping rules you agree or don't with shouldn't matter. The gatekeeping is the problem. Being afraid of ideas and shutting down anyone who doesn't speak about approved topics is the issue not whether your gatekeeping rules have been met.

Re: Facebook's “see no evil” strategy

#86

Post by tablespoon »

epicureanideal wrote: post #39
wwweston wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What a lot of people mean by "Harmful content" isn't opinions and discourse on whether something is good or bad. Harmful content is disinformation about what something is. It's a concept that can be abused for certain, and I suppose that makes it dangerous. Unfortunately, there's also dangers in not intervening. Every space in which valuable discourse takes place has to take some form of order including restraint ser…

> And I'd like to think that no matter what someone's general political sensibilities are they can find a way to advocate for them under conditions where order and some degree of accountability for truthfulness is required of them. The problem is that the sides don't even agree on the same facts anymore. For example, some think there was election fraud, and some don't. Some believe there is actual evidence of electio…

> But at the same time, there are other auditors that show very convincing evidence that there was at least some additional voter fraud beyond what was detected in the audits.

What evidence, exactly? IIRC, there were some professional-looking mathy analyses that claimed to find it, but they all had glaring methodological errors.

I think there are cases where "the sides don't even agree on the same facts anymore" and both have some claim to truth, but it's not on election fraud or the election results.

Re: Facebook's “see no evil” strategy

#87

Post by cmrdporcupine »

cs702 wrote: post #78
benjaminjosephw wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds like another way of saying "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity". Ignoring so many people asking them to examine their bias and human fallibility is definitely a form of stupidity. That is unless they believe the people are more flawed than they are and that they are better placed to judge what the people need. In that case, it becomes more malice than stupidity.

It's not stupidity, I think, but wishful thinking and unconscious self-deception motivated by profit: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by wishful thinking and unconscious self-deception motivated by profit."

It's what is called "ideology" in critical theory & Marxism. Thought shaped by way of class position; aka people "think with their stomachs." Not always, but on the whole, the majority of people will adopt the world view that keeps them fed/wealthy/powerful/happy.

Re: Facebook's “see no evil” strategy

#88

Post by the_optimist »

thereisnospork wrote: post #75
splitstud wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please continue. Explain how those beliefs intersect with moral value.

Please explain how 'pro-life' isn't a moral position. Isn't the position fairly summarized as: 'it is immoral to abort a pregnancy under ? Emphasis mine.

Where exactly do you propose this intersects with the concepts of “stupidity” and “superstition”?

Re: Facebook's “see no evil” strategy

#89

Post by cmrdporcupine »

war1025 wrote: post #37
cs702 wrote: post #21

It's not so much that the key people at the top of Facebook "see no evil," but that they truly, sincerely, earnestly believe there is no evil to be seen, or if there is any evil, they truly, sincerely, earnestly believe they can subdue it with great engineering and great management. They fail to see what every outsider, and many insiders, clearly see. Paraphrasing Upton Sinclair: It is difficult to get people to see…

It's weird to think of Facebook as the reasonable people in the room. The left wants to own online political discussion in the US, and they are very bothered that the right finds a ready audience when they are allowed to compete.

That's a very odd definition of "left" floating around down there in the US. What is being called "left" in that context is nothing but neo-liberal centrist politics, and it has wanted to own political discussion in the US in some form or another for over a century. It's right of centre and frankly conservative on fundamental economics issues [i.e. where all the power is held], and could only be called "left" in the domain of cultural issues...

Actual socialist politics are not permitted in US discourse, just stuff around the margins which is not threatening to corporate power (identity politics, maybe some health care reform).

I remain flabbergasted by the increasing number of people who can somehow in the same breath complain about "radical socialists" and "cultural marxists" while at the same time somehow equating those people with "corporate elites" and "silicon valley" -- the two are the enemy of the other.

EDIT: as a person with actual radical socialist politics, I can assure you that both Facebook and the NYT want nothing to do with my views.

Re: Facebook's “see no evil” strategy

#90

Post by Gunax »

Hokusai wrote: post #53
zohch wrote: post #46

What exactly is the evil that Facebook is supposedly trying to not see? And how would making reach data available make it easier for Facebook to see evil? Or if Facebook is trying to hide the evil, what evil is it they are trying to hide? What will the reach data reveal that is so evil? And if the evil is manifest without reach data, why does it matter?

> What exactly is the evil that Facebook is supposedly trying to not see? I see that you are new here, this is not Reddit. You should read the linked article before posting, there you can find the answer to this question and others. Be informed, be polite.

It would be nice if we all came to the same conclusions if we just read the same material. But reality doesnt work that way.

Assuming we are just dolts who cannot read because we disagree is a bit presumptuous.

Post reply on HN