Facebook's “see no evil” strategy • Hacker News Board

Re: Facebook's “see no evil” strategy

#121

Post by varelse » Thu, Jul 15, 2021, 9:38 PM UTC

throwawayboise wrote: post #105

thereisnospork wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I would not be a perfectly reasonable public health policy to do what you suggest, it would be a waste of time and money. Everybody knows that being fat is unhealthy. The people who are fat and not doing anything about it just don't care, or have other priorities.

Or they have a story far more complicated than what have you have reduced them to being. Just attempting to manage the pandemic in the US has demonstrated how complicated and contradictory people turn out to be. But I do agree that pamphlets about BMI aren't likely to change their outlook. They each need their own personalized moments of clarity about their path and it's not all a sure thing they ever have theirs.

But also, a few people are obese because they are on steroids or they have some genetic issue independent of their choices in life. They are not the norm, but they'll get lumped in with the norm and that's offensive and improper. That said, if FB found out their userbase is unusually obese compared to the rest of a country's citizens, that informs them they have a potential moral hazard in their hands.

But if you're deeply offended at such telemetry, maybe consider no using Facebook. You'll be fine without it. I personally make sure to post ridiculous and contradictory responses to the insipidly and horribly targeted ads they push into my feed. Some of them have gotten me suspended for violating their "community standards" that IMO would not get me suspended anywhere else.

Re: Facebook's “see no evil” strategy

#122

Post by JKCalhoun » Thu, Jul 15, 2021, 9:51 PM UTC

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…

> they truly, sincerely, earnestly believe there is no evil to be seen

Truly? Sincerely? Earnestly? All that?

I must be a lot more cynical than you. I think they absolutely know the score. I think they sincerely would rather not be painted with the brush of accountability, would prefer deniability.

Re: Facebook's “see no evil” strategy

#123

Post by autoexec » Thu, Jul 15, 2021, 9:52 PM UTC

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…

> So the problem is that you can make some statistical predictions about what someone's views are based on their reading habits. But you can't morally judge them on that basis

Companies are making these kinds of flawed assumptions about you and every one of us every single day. They often then sell that info to data brokers who happily sell that data to others who will then start with incorrect assumptions about you as an individual and let that influence how they interpret the rest of the data they collect about you.

It's a real problem because those flawed data sets you aren't allowed to see, contest, or update are increasingly being used to meaningfully impact your everyday life in ways that you'll never be aware of.

The bottom line is that companies don't care. If they will make more money by being right most of the time that's what they are going to do. You might be the fittest, healthiest person on Earth, but if your health insurance company sees that people in your area code have started buying fast food more often they can decide to raise your rates. They won't tell you why they did it. They'll just do it. You could be the most financially responsible person on Earth but if you live in the wrong zip code don't be surprised when you get denied certain services or told that a company's polices are one thing when they would have told you they were something else if you lived on the other side of town.

That said, it's probably a whole lot easier to make accurate predictions about people than you think. Sure you'd read fox news, but most of your time is probably not spent on right wing sites, you probably aren't leaving comments espousing right wing talking points, and you probably aren't donating money to right wing causes.

With enough data it's not that hard to figure out if you're regularly hanging out at stormfront because you're working for the Anti-Defamation League or because you're a racist.

Algorithms can detect (and exploit) mental illnesses like bipolar disorder and Alzheimer's companies can certainly detect "stupid" well enough for their own needs.

Re: Facebook's “see no evil” strategy

#124

Post by jozvolskyef » Thu, Jul 15, 2021, 9:52 PM UTC

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.

You are making a straw man argument by assuming that GP claims they can infer individual-level attributes from telemetry while all they claim is to infer population-level attributes.

Re: Facebook's “see no evil” strategy

#125

Post by JKCalhoun » Thu, Jul 15, 2021, 10:02 PM UTC

user-the-name wrote: post #109

throwitaway1235 wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You call opinions you disagree with lies.

Yes, there we go: This reaction, when calling it obvious and blatant lies. Every time. Believing in lies is now normal and expected of right-wingers, and calling it out is called attacking political opinions. It's not. It's lies.

I see you point. But using "right-wingers" is a tell of sorts. It makes you appear dismissive of the opposing viewpoint.

But otherwise I agree: there is such a thing as truth and there are out and out lies.

I hope that my views are based on truths but I recognize that there are areas that while true are nuanced enough that someone else can come to a different conclusion than me. For this reason I don't claim that everyone with a different view is backing their view with lies.

Sometimes though, some of them are.

Re: Facebook's “see no evil” strategy

#126

Post by grrrrrrreat » Thu, Jul 15, 2021, 10:20 PM UTC

ksec wrote: post #73

potatolicious wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's frustrating that the discussion around technology's effects on society is still stuck between the extremes of: - "tech has a causal effect on society" - "society has a causal effect on tech, tech is a mirror" At this point it seems pretty patently obvious that the reality is both ? Technology is subject to pre-existing flaws in society, but also has the capability to amplify and worsen it. > the popularity of th…

>It's frustrating that the discussion around technology's effects on society is still stuck between the extremes of: It is not just tech. It is pretty much everything else on the internet and media. No one is telling me the pros and cons anymore. After I read the pros I have to go and dig up my own list of cons or vice versa. No one is finishing the sentence with "having said that" and round off with some counter arg…

| "The only way to understand the Press is to remember that they pander to their readers' prejudices."

Its mind boggling how much of that show is still relevant today.

Re: Facebook's “see no evil” strategy

#127

Post by rscoots » Thu, Jul 15, 2021, 10:23 PM UTC

tablespoon wrote: post #6

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.

> ...but more about using that information as a way to try to pressure Facebook to censor content they don't like. That's far too simplistic of a take. Facebook and social media amplifying partisan shit-stirrers and misinformation over more sober voices should be seen as a serious issue, regardless of your ideological commitments.

Who at Facebook do you trust to decide who is a "sober voice" that will be artificially promoted after the organically popular are censored?

What is this person's qualifications?

How can they be held to account when they inevitably get it wrong?

Where will the highly-transparent write-up detailing this decision making be published?

Before these Q's are answered I don't want FB touching their algorithms at all.

Re: Facebook's “see no evil” strategy

#128

Post by s5300 » Thu, Jul 15, 2021, 10:32 PM UTC

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #113

stouset wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I downvoted you. Not because I disagree, but because I too believe your arguments are in bad faith and/or misrepresenting the positions of those you disagree with. > It's funny that the party of "my body my choice" is so against people wanting a say over what goes into their bodies. Unlike anti-abortion laws which force women to take pregnancies to term against their will, I am aware of zero proposed legislation that…

> Unlike anti-abortion laws which force women to take pregnancies to term against their will, I am aware of zero proposed legislation that aims to force people into vaccination against their will. Just this week , Biden was talking about having people go door-to-door to push the unvaccinated to get the shot. Arizona publicly told him to get bent - they weren't going to do that in their state. So, that's not "forcing"…

I'm gonna guess that you're unaware of the states/large regions in which military recruiters go door to door, constantly send mail, and come to public schools in an effort to recruit kids.

Why is there no uproar about this after decades of it...?

Re: Facebook's “see no evil” strategy

#129

Post by jmcgough » Thu, Jul 15, 2021, 10:35 PM UTC

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.

Their solution to an aging userbase is buying out competitors (instagram, whatsapp) to prevent them from overtaking FB.

FB bought Oculus because they're beholden to Apple and Google in the mobile space; if VR is the next major platform (Zuck thought it was 10 years away in 2015) and Oculus is the market leader, it weakens Apple/Google's control on them.

Re: Facebook's “see no evil” strategy

#130

Post by stouset » Thu, Jul 15, 2021, 10:38 PM UTC

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #113

stouset wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I downvoted you. Not because I disagree, but because I too believe your arguments are in bad faith and/or misrepresenting the positions of those you disagree with. > It's funny that the party of "my body my choice" is so against people wanting a say over what goes into their bodies. Unlike anti-abortion laws which force women to take pregnancies to term against their will, I am aware of zero proposed legislation that…

> Unlike anti-abortion laws which force women to take pregnancies to term against their will, I am aware of zero proposed legislation that aims to force people into vaccination against their will. Just this week , Biden was talking about having people go door-to-door to push the unvaccinated to get the shot. Arizona publicly told him to get bent - they weren't going to do that in their state. So, that's not "forcing"…

> Just this week, Biden was talking about having people go door-to-door to push the unvaccinated to get the shot... So, that's not "forcing" people, but it's too close for my taste.

Can you acknowledge that—even taking this completely at face value—going door-to-door encouraging the use of a vaccine has absolutely nothing in common with legally forcing women to take unwanted pregnancies to term, regardless of which side of either policy you care to take?

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Trying to draw parallels between these two situations is absurd to the point of bad faith or willful misrepresentation.

> I'm going to presume that you wouldn't be fine with the state sending people door to door to push those who were pregnant to carry to term.

For reasons completely independent of "my body, my choice" which was the original goalpost.

This is an issue of public health for which we had to globally shut down international travel and social gatherings for a year and a half, and which had incalculable economic impact on billions. Can you also acknowledge that such consequences might perhaps clear a higher bar than that of a choice whose impact is fundamentally limited in scope?

Recognizing that difference in impact is why we've spent $20bn on vaccine development and who knows how much on the actual vaccine rollout.