Live data from Hacker News

Facebook under fire over secret teen research

bbc.co.uk

171–180 of 226 posts

Re: Facebook under fire over secret teen research

#171

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…

The outrage, I hope, is that Facebook conducted research that made it aware of something negative it was doing that made it money but kept the information tight and continued acting in a harmful way because... it makes them money. Ignorance is one thing and can be forgiven to some degree or treated as negligence. Wanton money chasing at all costs with no regard to damages you knowingly cause because, again, money, is…

> Research will continue because businesses understand the value of science and research even if they don't respect it. That research will only ever be used to their advantage though.

Except it can't if it requires both internal data access and approval from FB management.

Re: Facebook under fire over secret teen research

#172
post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Such a shame Facebook is considered a prestigious place to work. Is it? It’s not my industry but I haven’t got that impression from reading threads here.

Look up the FAANG acronym. It’s a collection of companies that are supposedly the “best” to work for. Facebook is the F Edit: Here’s an example Reddit thread of what I mean: https://www.reddit.com/r/csMajors/comments/mnl4u2/why_does_e...

Maybe I'm out of the loop, but I thought Facebook specifically was known for being the highest paying of the FAANGs because they are the least prestigious (and also people have ethical concerns re: their products).

Re: Facebook under fire over secret teen research

#173
post #75
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…

TikTok is not an adversarial platform and there is probably an element of East vs West styles of thinking here. TikTok's engagement is driven up by people taking other's videos and building on top of it. FaceBook's engagement is driven up by people taking another's position and arguing against it. Leads to very different styles of engagement. You can find toxic content on TikTok as well and build on top of it but it is harder and you have to seek it. On Facebook, you could make a slightly partisan post and someone will take an opposite position and then you harden your position to defend against that and others join in until it turns into a pissing match.

Re: Facebook under fire over secret teen research

#174
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…

And better yet, illegal in public places.

Re: Facebook under fire over secret teen research

#175
post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Maybe because the TikTok algorithm is feeding you what you value. Whereas for people with different values, maybe people with certain insecurities that are in the process of change (mainly adolescents) they might be drawn to people that have what they lack just like any other social media platform. TikTok is incredible, in my opinion, it really is the best content-delivery platform... but that is actually quite dange…

TikTok feeding us what we apparently value is its biggest danger.

When people out of mere curiosity watch something biased/misrepresented/discriminatory/extreme and interact with that content, irrespective of whether all their opinions at that moment of time are the same as that of the content they watched, the algorithm will aggressively push similar content onto you, and there will definitely be a few who fall into "the doom".

Re: Facebook under fire over secret teen research

#176
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…

You'd see a picture of a blackend facebook lung every time you launched the website

Along with a Surgeon General’s health warning banner on all UX

Re: Facebook under fire over secret teen research

#177
post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if this happened, would teenagers would be upset or relieved? There's a This American Life episode[1] in which several teenage girls explain the complex etiquette of Instagram. It sounds stressful, it sounds exhausting, it sounds like a full time job. Right now, anyone who opts out also excludes themselves from a major aspect of school social life. 1. https://www.thisamericanlife.org/573/transcript

They would be upset. 100%. Many of them just don't care about the inner workings of the app.

Maybe that is the downside of the general policy of abstraction that Devs use, that software should be made to look as simple as possible, and all the apparently "unnecessary intricacies"(which could have disastrous effects) should be dumped under the hood.

Re: Facebook under fire over secret teen research

#178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

actually, the basis for most regulation to curb smoking is based on exactly the kind of societal argument you bring up for social media. The freedom of the individual to harm themselves had stood pretty strong, but the societal cost (mostly health care) eventually outweighed it.

I wonder what happens to Facebook, Reddit, and other social networks if they are eventually forced to pay reparations for the societal damage in much the way the tobacco companies had to pay billions to re-educate Americans about the real dangers of smoking. We see that Big Tobacco has pivoted to owning other parts of the consumer economy and they are still quite strong and healthy companies though their tobacco operations have shifted overseas where there is little to no education or regulation.

Should Facebook have to sponsor educational initiatives designed to pivot users away from social networks and/or pay restitution for teen suicides, family break-ups, politically motivated crimes committed by their users? That would be great but we tend not to hold anyone accountable for anything nowadays. The worst penalty our society applies tends to be banishment from social networks or public shaming of participants.

It reminds me a bit of the oil and gas business. In college we learned about the creation of the Texas Railroad Commission and how it was given control over oil and gas operations in the state at a time when over-production was driving oil prices down and boomtowns were lawless. The Railroad Commission created the guidelines that established minimum well spacings in producing fields, production rates, etc and they were given control over how to handle spills and most anything related to oil and gas operations.

The big brag in the course was that this was such a comprehensive set of rules that it became the model for the world in how frontier operations were managed. Basically the oil and gas industry wrote the regulations that they would need to follow and used those as a blueprint for operations globally in countries where there were no established laws. As time went on, industry tailored the rules to the sophistication level of the judicial system of the operating country allowing them to produce other nation's assets at the most favorable rates, in the most industry-favorable manner using rules they modified so as to maximize their own profits and minimize their own liability.

I'm not sure how I got off on that but it is late here and I go on tangents sometimes but it seemed relevant in the sense that Facebook and others have O&G industry levels of influence, they have no incentive to hamstring their own operations or to do anything that would diminish or negatively impact the future value of the massive amounts of data they have collected on everyone so it seems like they will get to write the rules about how their own operations are regulated since, just as the O&G industry did back in the day, they can portray themselves as the experts who are the only ones who really know how to fix the problems they themselves created.

Anyway. Sorry for the long-winded reply. Not sure if it adds any value to the conversation.

Re: Facebook under fire over secret teen research

#179
post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look up the FAANG acronym. It’s a collection of companies that are supposedly the “best” to work for. Facebook is the F Edit: Here’s an example Reddit thread of what I mean: https://www.reddit.com/r/csMajors/comments/mnl4u2/why_does_e...

Maybe I'm out of the loop, but I thought Facebook specifically was known for being the highest paying of the FAANGs because they are the least prestigious (and also people have ethical concerns re: their products).

Okay I'm not sure how HN convinced themselves of this but higher paying means more prestige, not less prestige because "no one is willing to join otherwise". It would seem pretty intuitive but apparently not on here where the mental gymnastics to discredit FANG has somehow correlated lower pay with better job these days.

And prestige among the FANGs generally goes: Google and FB in their own tier (depending on whether you value WLB or compensation and promotion rate), Apple and Netflix slightly lower, and Amazon (and Microsoft, albeit not a FANG) much lower than all of them.

Re: Facebook under fire over secret teen research

#180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you support that belief with any evidence or a coherent argument? What good does FB do that offsets the great amount of evil it does? What offsets FB's choices that connected millions of extremists and gave them protected spaces to radicalize each other? [0] What offsets FB's decision to rush into regions it can't moderate, leading to FB being used as the platform that spreads genocide-inciting misinformation? [1…

This warrants a long response, that I would love writing one day but don’t have the time. But I’ll leave a short one here to respect your comment. I believe social media empowers people, it makes my life better, it gives many people a voice where before it only belonged to a few. Those few also incited wars and genocides, and bred rage and mistrust (From NY Times supporting Iraq war to your local news stations to Fox…

I stopped using Facebook in 2017. I felt absolutely miserable while angrily reading the stream of ragebait Facebook kept feeding me. Facebook has been really damaging to the mental health of my parents which has been an absolute nightmare for me over the past two years. I went through my dad's feed last year too see if FB had improved and it was an absolute hellscape. There would be nice content like grandbaby pictures from his friends sprinkled between lethally dangerous COVID disinformation and content designed to enrage. Much like what was captured in this article [0].

I don't see the value of giving a platform to dangerous bullshit. People need truth about reality. Giving a platform, or voice, to people who feed bad information to others can cause those others to make suboptimal choices, like rejecting masks or vaccines. How many people have died a miserable death (suffocating because their lungs can no longer absorb any oxygen even at 100% O2) over the past 2 years because of COVID disinformation spread on FB? Based on how many hours I've had to spend on the phone with my parents explaining why things they saw on FB are wrong, there's absolutely no way it's less than 10s of thousands just in the US.

I'm pretty impressed with your ability to just brush aside a genocide caused by FB rushing into a new market with 18 million people with only a few dozen moderators that speak the language. Facebook had been running a social media site for nearly a decade by then; there's no way FB didn't know the minimum ratio of moderators to users needed to keep up with typical moderation workloads. The only explanation consistent with the evidence is that FB just didn't care about avoiding that genocide and mass displacement. And based on your reaction to it, I assume the FB culture still isn't concerned about the boring details of being responsible and ethical.

I'm not trying to shame you, I don't think shame works at changing people's behavior, but I do think being caviler about massive harms like genocide and COVID disinformation is a major red flag, and I think you should take a hard look at your values and grapple with the possiblity that working for a company that kills hundreds of thousands through (best case scenario) gross negligence may be indefensible.

[0] https://nyti.ms/3mffwXX

Post reply on HN