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

Facebook under fire over secret teen research

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 226 posts

Re: Facebook under fire over secret teen research

#41

Post by 1vuio0pswjnm7 »

1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote: post #10

This is more interesting (Instagram response to WSJ, linked to in the article): https://about.instagram.com/blog/announcements/using-researc... "We're increasingly focused on addressing negative social comparison and negative body image. One idea we think has promise is finding opportunities to jump in if we see people dwelling on certain types of content." "From our research, we're starting to understand the types o…

"We're cautiously optimistic that these nudges will help point people towards content that inspires and uplifts them, and to a larger extent, will shift the part of Instagram's culture that focuses on how people look."

The term "nudge" could have multiple meanings. For example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nudge_(instant_messaging) or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nudge_theory

In either case, given the modus operandi of a "tech" company, its an encroachment on free will. An subversive attempt to influence decision-making deisgned to fly under the radar. "Tech" companies already do this with their so-called "dark patterns", making choices confusing or removing viable choices altogether. There is nothing new here in this "rebuttal" from Instagram, except perhaps a new "justification" (a parallel construction) they can cite as to why they corraled a user to look at something (favorable to Instagrams 100% ad-dependent business) when the user actually wanted to look at something else. Of course, Instagram could provide users with this "nudge" feature as an option (like HN has noprocrast), but we all know they wont. That is not a choice they want the user to have. The "business" of these companies is to show advertising to users. They are middlemen. Watching and plotting.

Re: Facebook under fire over secret teen research

#42

Post by usernomdeguerre »

standardUser wrote: post #7
notyourwork wrote: post #3

Does anyone remember Cosmopolitan and other like magazines. Teenage body issues and associated anxiety are not new. What has happened is we gave everyone internet access so now they can look at pictures of unrealistic bodies all day everywhere they go. The result is body dysmorphia on steroids.

I truly don't understands this perspective. It used to be that mass media was a tightly-controlled, walled-off garden. The set number of popular and accessible magazines, tv stations and films suffered from far more centralized control, had far less inclusion in its leadership and staff, and resulted in a hyper-narrow range of acceptable beauty and image standards. It was borderline dystopian. Young people, by and la…

I'd agree that 'body positivity' is easier to find in this climate, but is it what's being often served on these platforms algorithmically? Is it the default prior to your personal 'profile' being recorded? Does it pump the 'engagement cycle' at a better rate than these 'body negative' cultures? If not, then we're not better off in this era because-- as we've seen-- the engagement cycle is a feedback loop. It amplifies itself. And the qualities of the people it attracts.

I personally do not take issue with these cultures existing; however i do take issue with how they are propagated and promoted. These systems don't afford users the full breadth of 'response options' as we would have in real life. You can't even express simple dislike or disagreement, unlike 'love' and 'like', etc. Not to mention the black-box engines of recommendation and discovery of new content in the first place.

And though i don't agree that there's ~less body negativity in the aggregate that wouldn't mean that is has less impact. A small culture highly-addicted to body negativity could have larger social impacts than widely-held-but-less-addicted. We see it across many other domains already in our 'American' culture.

Re: Facebook under fire over secret teen research

#43

Post by NikolaNovak »

na85 wrote: post #24
voidfunc wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like money. Not at Facebook but would join if I was looking again. Someone’s gonna get the money, it might as well be me.

>Someone’s gonna get the money, it might as well be me. Ethics are disappointingly rare in Software. Such a shame.

I mean... On one hand, I agree with your bemoaning,but then on second thought - compared to what?

I don't think plumbers,electricians,lawyers, construction workers,car salespeople, you name it necessarily have inherently better average ethics (even once and if we define and agree on what those are or should be :)

Re: Facebook under fire over secret teen research

#45

Post by modriano »

discobot wrote: post #29
i_love_music wrote: post #17

Such a shame Facebook is considered a prestigious place to work. Sure, you can become a millionaire, but at what cost? Is this what you imagined you would do as a kid interested in math/computers/science?

Some believe that facebook is a positive force in the world, despite being hated.

If someone wanted to make the case that Facebook is a net-good force in the world, I'd read that. But I haven't seen anyone even try to lay out evidence of Facebook doing any good things. I like pytorch, prophet, and their decent job policing the pedophiles on the FB platform, but what else do they do that's good and responsible?

Re: Facebook under fire over secret teen research

#46

Post by i_haz_rabies »

voidfunc wrote: post #23
i_love_music wrote: post #17

Such a shame Facebook is considered a prestigious place to work. Sure, you can become a millionaire, but at what cost? Is this what you imagined you would do as a kid interested in math/computers/science?

I like money. Not at Facebook but would join if I was looking again. Someone’s gonna get the money, it might as well be me.

And this is why humanity will always suck.

Re: Facebook under fire over secret teen research

#47

Post by dpflan »

huntermeyer wrote: post #9

We may have to come together as a society and deem these social media apps as being a harm to society, especially the youth. Perhaps even age restrict them like alcohol, gambling, etc.

The argument of it being “big tobacco” of the present has weight, but social media also has benefit. A cigarette is a simpler villain. A public health initiative could help, but there needs to be societal pressure and legal weight behind the movement. Perhaps COVID misinfo is a potential reason to push against social media in a strongly legal way in the US or even internationally? I’m curious of how this can pan out, but social media is a very powerful tool at scale so many powerful forces will want to keep it around in less regulated fashion.

Re: Facebook under fire over secret teen research

#48

Post by quotemstr »

rozap wrote: post #21
i_love_music wrote: post #17

Such a shame Facebook is considered a prestigious place to work. Sure, you can become a millionaire, but at what cost? Is this what you imagined you would do as a kid interested in math/computers/science?

It's a useful tool for hiring though. I wouldn't be able to hire anyone who worked there. At least at my current job, a functioning moral compass is required due to the impact our clients (governments) have on the general population. It's part of our interview process to figure out if someone cares about how their work effects people. Not that the pay scales overlap much anyway.

> I wouldn't be able to hire anyone who worked there

> Not that the pay scales overlap much anyway

Those grapes sure are sour.

Re: Facebook under fire over secret teen research

#49

Post by throwawayboise »

NikolaNovak wrote: post #43
na85 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Someone’s gonna get the money, it might as well be me. Ethics are disappointingly rare in Software. Such a shame.

I mean... On one hand, I agree with your bemoaning,but then on second thought - compared to what? I don't think plumbers,electricians,lawyers, construction workers,car salespeople, you name it necessarily have inherently better average ethics (even once and if we define and agree on what those are or should be :)

Sometimes you have to take the work you can get because the skills you have are in oversupply.

As a software dev, if you're good enough to pass the screening at Facebook, you're good enough to have your pick of employers. You can go to one which is making a positive impact on the world.

Post reply on HN