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

Facebook has exempted high-profile users from some or all of its rules

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

441–450 of 549 posts

Re: Facebook has exempted high-profile users from some or all of its rules

#441

Post by ErikVandeWater »

camdat wrote: post #430
ErikVandeWater wrote: post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You have to remember that high profile accounts get 10000x the number of abuse-reports than a normal account - nearly all bogus. The normal automated moderation functions simply do not work. You would think with the literal legion of geniuses Facebook has they would have a smarter way of handling reports than simply counting them and taking down content that receives over X reports.

They do. In the linked article it discusses high-risk accounts requiring less reports to take down a post, down to as little as one.

I was being sarcastic.

Re: Facebook has exempted high-profile users from some or all of its rules

#442

Post by tlear »

nindalf wrote: post #110

Huh, never thought I’d see XCheck in a news article. I used to work at Facebook and spotted abuse of this system by bad actors and partly fixed it. It’s still not perfect but it’s better than it used to be. I think I might have agreed with the author of this article before working in Integrity for a few years. But with time I learned that any system that’s meant to work for millions of users will have some edge cases…

You are surprised that after blatantly lying for years the truth came out?

I mean unless you are the 5th directorate of KGB.. but even then shit like this always comes out.

Re: Facebook has exempted high-profile users from some or all of its rules

#443

Post by massysett »

908B64B197 wrote: post #384
rwmj wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So when Mark Zuckerberg buys a new phone or whatever, what happens?

My bet is he emails the auth team and gives as much info as he can about the device. Then they create auth rules as if a regular login had happened. I also assume if he's on the internal network it might be easier to just manually allow auth attemps from a few internal IPs for a few seconds.

My bet is that he emails someone on his staff one day and says “I want the new iPhone” and the next day he has one and he can do whatever he needs to on it.

This whole idea of “Zuck can’t log in from a new device” is laughable. That’s like saying Biden doesn’t have the keys to Air Force One. He doesn’t need them.

Re: Facebook has exempted high-profile users from some or all of its rules

#444

Post by [deleted] »

qweqwweqwe-90i wrote: post #438
danudey wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is exactly the solution. IF tons of people are reporting Steve Newscaster because he posted a status about how his team won, then he shouldn't become immune to criticism, those people should lose the privilege of having their voice heard. Just send them a little message saying "Hey, you've falsely reported a bunch of posts/accounts lately, so we're restricting your ability to report content for 30 days." and if…

Write me a sentence that won't get 1000 reports if viewed by 60 million people.

[deleted]

Re: Facebook has exempted high-profile users from some or all of its rules

#445

Post by adolph »

SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #314
adolph wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mitt Romney, the senator from Utah, former Republican presidential candidate and former Massachusetts governor, is also, apparently, the man behind a Twitter account that uses the moniker “Pierre Delecto.” https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/21/us/mitt-romney-pierre-del...

I liked that, you FINALLY got a taste of the Real Romney. I had dinner with him and his family. I wasn't before, during, or afterwards a fan. To sum it up quickly, I have never in my life been in the company of people so removed from the everyday working man while being waited on by them. Truly an amazing experience that I look back on with a pre and post understanding of "the elite".

My guess is that pretty much everyone has misconceptions about the experiences of everyday working folk in that the working non-elite are populous and diverse. The key observation is if their mental models are helpful and for who.

Re: Facebook has exempted high-profile users from some or all of its rules

#446

Post by tlear »

shadowgovt wrote: post #427
IggleSniggle wrote: post #423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

wtf?? I haven't been on FB for about 10 years now and every now and then a comment like this comes along which makes me realize just how out of touch with the global bureaucracy I've become

So Facebook now has an independent review board to determine whether their decisions to ban somebody follow their own policies. You can flag a decision to suspend your account for review by that board, but most decisions so flagged will not be reviewed.

FB lied to their own board about this, it is in the article

Re: Facebook has exempted high-profile users from some or all of its rules

#447

Post by specialist »

robocat wrote: post #413
specialist wrote: post #399

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Facebook shouldn't be expected to clean up the messes they create because it's hard?

They didn’t say that: none of their comments seem to be defending Facebook. They are giving their opinion that human moderation is not a simple solution. I super appreciate nindalf’s comments here. It is a shame that an ex -developer who knows the problem space and is clearly explaining some if the issues is getting flamed by association.

Sincere question. Not flaming.

If human moderation won't work. And whatever they're doing now is an unqualified disaster. Then what is the solution?

Oil companies tell us that oil spills and pollution and ruined ecologies and the burning planet are just part of using oil. Sad face.

They're doing their very best to minimize the negatives. They hire the very best lobbyists and memory hole as much as possible and donate to some zoos and greenwash and "recycle".

What more could they possibly do?

Really, what do you expect? Stop using oil?! Please. That's crazy talk.

More seriously, I'm not saying that Facebook is an unmitigated evil, that their biz is the moral equivalent of trafficking (humans, arms, drugs, toxic waste), or that humanity would be better if it had never existed.

I'm only asking why they continue to create a mess that they are incapable of cleaning up, by their own admission.

--

I understand these questions are for The Zuck, The Jack, and their cast of enablers (profiteers) like Thiel, Andreessen, etc.

Re: Facebook has exempted high-profile users from some or all of its rules

#448

Post by burnished »

nindalf wrote: post #394
Ansil849 wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You might say that maybe 99.99% isn’t good enough and the engineers should try for more 9s. Maybe it’s possible but I don’t know how. If you have ideas on this, please share. Hire a large human moderation team. Facebook can afford to. They choose not to.

> a large human moderation team You're not the only person who has suggested this. Let's think about that for a second. Let's say it takes 6 minutes for a moderation team to review an older account. There's 2 billion accounts, so it'd be good to review all of those. It would take about 200 million hours. Presumably you'd want to re-review positive cases so no moderator has too much power. Additional time. Even if Fac…

This doesn't sound like an incredible burden. They are making twenty million accounts a day apparently, if they need to slow down they can.

Re: Facebook has exempted high-profile users from some or all of its rules

#449

Post by smsm42 »

vasco wrote: post #318
cratermoon wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> high profile accounts get 10000x the number of abuse-reports Has anyone considered the possibility that this is a signal from the non-elites that something is wrong? That ignoring this "mass downvote" is the essence of the structural elitism?

Popular users get lots of eyeballs on their content. If an average post will get 1 report per 10k views, a popular post with 10m views will get 1000 reports. It doesn't have to have a deeper meaning.

FB knows how many eyeballs there was. Their whole business is counting eyeballs. So they can easily teach whatever robot they use to take eyeball counts into account, and give more weight to "report per view" than to "absolute number of reports".

Re: Facebook has exempted high-profile users from some or all of its rules

#450

Post by SV_BubbleTime »

adolph wrote: post #445
SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I liked that, you FINALLY got a taste of the Real Romney. I had dinner with him and his family. I wasn't before, during, or afterwards a fan. To sum it up quickly, I have never in my life been in the company of people so removed from the everyday working man while being waited on by them. Truly an amazing experience that I look back on with a pre and post understanding of "the elite".

My guess is that pretty much everyone has misconceptions about the experiences of everyday working folk in that the working non-elite are populous and diverse. The key observation is if their mental models are helpful and for who.

I was with well off people that were still humans. The Romney’s I was with, I’m really not sure.

If there was a conservative thought between any of them I didn’t hear it. Nor did I hear anything that I would have described as a “good take” on any thing, like if he were to suggest something on topic X, that neither proponents nor opponents of X would consider the idea valid. In a two hours, I don’t imagine I heard a single honest heartfelt conviction.

Without giving up enough to ID me to anyone at any time in the future, I can say this… the world would burn if the Romney’s were in charge.

Post reply on HN