Facebook under fire over secret teen research • Hacker News Board

Re: Facebook under fire over secret teen research

#131

Post by brink » Thu, Sep 16, 2021, 2:31 AM UTC

apeace wrote: post #62

A parallel between Facebook and Big Tobacco had never occurred to me until I read this: > In a move straight out of big tobacco's playbook, Facebook downplayed the negative effects of its product and hid this research from the public and even from members of Congress who specifically asked for it What would our world be like if it were illegal to have a social media account until you were 21 years old? Interesting to…

I've been saying to my friends for some time that social media is the new smoking.

Re: Facebook under fire over secret teen research

#132

Post by diskzero » Thu, Sep 16, 2021, 2:33 AM UTC

ndesaulniers wrote: post #105

cybernautique wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Facebook does not have any regard for human agency, neither the platform nor the corporation, anymore than fentanyl or its producers have. I agree that the sense of which you speak is a nonsensical perspective; I'm not interested in laying blame on a tool for how the tool is utilized. The Facebook employee isn't unethical because of their nebulous entanglement in nth-order externalities, whereby bad-person X did bad-…

Does that make me unethical if I contribute to free or open source software, then Facebook uses that software, even though I don't work for them? Why would the answer to that question be different for employees?

Good question. Is it an open source project that originated at Facebook?

On the topic of open source, would it be possible to construct a license that removes the ability of bad actors to use it? Of course, a bad actor could use it against the terms of the license, but the intent of the software project is made clear.

Re: Facebook under fire over secret teen research

#133

Post by 1vuio0pswjnm7 » Thu, Sep 16, 2021, 2:34 AM UTC

wwweston wrote: post #94

1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 operand…

> In either case, given the modus operandi of a "tech" company, its an encroachment on free will. Given the nature of every medium ever includes some focus inherent in what creators make and curators highlight/disseminate, this seems like a bit of an overstatement. The decisions of a film studio, book author, or magazine editor aren't an encroachment on my free will, I can always tune out and look for something else.…

Disagree with this assessment. Tech companies are able to manipulate the audience for someone else's content "on a scale that would have been hard to really understand a half century ago." Films, books and magazines are not interactive media. Computers force their users to provide input, much more input than a channel to a TV tuner. As developers, it is definitely our problem because we can control that input. We can require input to suit our needs over the user's. We can monitor the user's interaction. We can easily redirect the user to locations he never intentionally specified he want to go. The TV tuning dial, the buttons on a TV remote or a TV's onscreen menu were more or less fixed. These could not be continually manipulated to optimise for the advertiser. No redirection. There was no software developer who was paid to manipulate, positioned between a film and a viewer in a theater, or between a reader and a physical book, or between a reader and a printed magazine.

Yes, people have more options thanks to computers, but theres now a middle layer of manipulation between people and the media they are consuming.

Re: Facebook under fire over secret teen research

#134

Post by option » Thu, Sep 16, 2021, 2:35 AM UTC

apeace wrote: post #62

A parallel between Facebook and Big Tobacco had never occurred to me until I read this: > In a move straight out of big tobacco's playbook, Facebook downplayed the negative effects of its product and hid this research from the public and even from members of Congress who specifically asked for it What would our world be like if it were illegal to have a social media account until you were 21 years old? Interesting to…

Spot on - we shouldn’t allow social media accounts for anyone under 21 years old.

Re: Facebook under fire over secret teen research

#135

Post by esperent » Thu, Sep 16, 2021, 2:37 AM UTC

Tarsul wrote: post #19

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…

I'd like to think that by "jumping in" they mean that they change what kind of content the algorithms shows their users... however, I'd guess that no such self-regulation could ever suffice (esp. because it would always be less important than ad money in internal metrics).

There's no difference, fundamentally, between displaying a popup to suggest looking at different material, and automatically showing different material. Both are equally creepy - actually, doing it automatically is more creepy. At least a popup let's the user know they're being spied on.

Re: Facebook under fire over secret teen research

#136

Post by 908B64B197 » Thu, Sep 16, 2021, 2:38 AM UTC

xvector wrote: post #75

khc wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the alternative would not be that teenagers would not have social media accounts, but that they would all be on Tiktok (which probably is already the case)

TikTok is a much more positive platform than anything Facebook has come up with TBH. Almost all of the creators I follow are just... normal people, making normal jokes and doing normal things. They aren't heavily airbrushed or photo/videoshopped or whatever. The content itself is generally much more positive and much more focused around acceptance and (body-)positivity. As far as social media platforms go, TikTok is…

If you are too ugly, the CCP will hide you from other users on TikTok! [0]

[0] https://www.pcmag.com/news/tiktok-censored-ugly-poor-or-disa...

Re: Facebook under fire over secret teen research

#137

Post by core-e » Thu, Sep 16, 2021, 2:39 AM UTC

xvector wrote: post #120

will4274 wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My SO has TikTok. It seems like mostly staged videos and folks with barely informed political rants to me.

TikTok shows you precisely what you want to see, whether it's simple and funny staged videos or something more intellectually engaging.

Does it show you precisely what you want to see? Or just what you're most likely to engage with? I feel like there's an important distinction there.

Re: Facebook under fire over secret teen research

#138

Post by shadilay » Thu, Sep 16, 2021, 2:43 AM UTC

dr_dshiv wrote: post #25

I'm concerned that this whole narrative implies that research is the problem. It feels like a continuation of when people were shocked, shocked when it was revealed that Facebook was conducting experiments on people . Well, the issue wasn't the A/B testing exactly, but rather the publishing of the experiments in scientific journals. As you know, public outrage put a stop to that. (The scientific publishing, not the A…

If facebook doesn't do this research a third party will and it will be much worse for them because they won't have prepared.

Re: Facebook under fire over secret teen research

#139

Post by BugsJustFindMe » Thu, Sep 16, 2021, 2:46 AM UTC

apeace wrote: post #62

A parallel between Facebook and Big Tobacco had never occurred to me until I read this: > In a move straight out of big tobacco's playbook, Facebook downplayed the negative effects of its product and hid this research from the public and even from members of Congress who specifically asked for it What would our world be like if it were illegal to have a social media account until you were 21 years old? Interesting to…

> What would our world be like if it were illegal to have a social media account until you were 21 years old?

Is that the question you take away? Mine is...

What would our world be like if it were illegal to lie to or otherwise obstruct Congress?

Re: Facebook under fire over secret teen research

#140

Post by doodlebugging » Thu, Sep 16, 2021, 2:46 AM UTC

brink wrote: post #131

apeace wrote: post #62

A parallel between Facebook and Big Tobacco had never occurred to me until I read this: > In a move straight out of big tobacco's playbook, Facebook downplayed the negative effects of its product and hid this research from the public and even from members of Congress who specifically asked for it What would our world be like if it were illegal to have a social media account until you were 21 years old? Interesting to…

I've been saying to my friends for some time that social media is the new smoking.

True. Except that smoking causes cancer in the individual and those unlucky enough to have to breathe that second-hand smoke. Social media causes cancerous decay in whole societies. and is a much bigger threat to all of us as a result.

We could choose not stand close to a smoker, not to share a ride in their car, etc. but it is very difficult to avoid having to interact with someone whose world-view has been bubbled up by their social media activity.