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

Facebook whistleblower says she wants to fix company, not harm it

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

411–420 of 627 posts

Re: Facebook whistleblower says she wants to fix company, not harm it

#411

Post by lanevorockz »

code_duck wrote: post #301

>Frances Haugen: So, you know, you have your phone. You might see only 100 pieces of content if you sit and scroll on for, you know, five minutes. But Facebook has thousands of options it could show you. >The algorithm picks from those options based on the kind of content you've engaged with the most in the past. This is the primary reason I stopped using Facebook. I did everything I could to signal I did not wish to…

The reason the algorithm does this is simple, they want to trigger an obsessive compulsive behaviour. The irritating content provokes you to engage and that's how a lot of their profit is made.

Re: Facebook whistleblower says she wants to fix company, not harm it

#412

Post by michaelt »

bjt wrote: post #140
mrxd wrote: post #104

I think misinformation and conspiracy theories on these platforms are a huge problem. A few years ago, some bad actors were successful in convincing Congress of a crazy conspiracy theory that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. The results were far-reaching. The US violated the UN charter and launched a disastrous war in Iraq where millions of Iraqis were killed, injured and displaced. They used a platfor…

> A few years ago, some bad actors were successful in convincing Congress of a crazy conspiracy theory that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction ... They used a platform called The New York Times to spread their lies. Citation needed that this was a knowing conspiracy as opposed to bad intelligence. Setting that aside, there's a big difference between an institution like the NY Times getting it wrong on occ…

> Citation needed that this was a knowing conspiracy as opposed to bad intelligence.

There were literally UN weapons inspectors in Iraq, and the "intelligence" couldn't guide them to a single weapon [1].

It was widely reported, even before the invasion, that the intelligence had been "sexed up" [2] - such as the inclusion of claims that WMDs could hit the UK within 45 minutes. Of course the politicians in charge knew the intelligence had been sexed up - they ordered it.

There are also memos agreeing to invade regardless of whether WMDs could be found [3].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hans_Blix&oldid=1...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=September_Dossier...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bush%E2%80%93Blai...

Re: Facebook whistleblower says she wants to fix company, not harm it

#414

Post by worldsayshi »

mszcz wrote: post #376
taurath wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hit the nail on the head there. It’s impossible to actually get what was the damn promise of Facebook to begin with, and instead everyone gets practically drugged with crap because it makes Mark more money.

Aside from the mountains of odorless excrement I started seeing on facebook, this was the other reason I quit. It became unusable because once I scrolled past something it was next to impossible to find it again by either scrolling up or searching. Instead of seeing what people were up to I started seeing things they thought would keep me on the platform for as long as possible. Looking at it now, at least to me, it…

I'm curious if when most people say they "quit" Facebook they removed their account or if they just stopped using it. It feels like most people I know has stopped using it, except for messenger, but almost no-one has actually removed or closed down their account.

Re: Facebook whistleblower says she wants to fix company, not harm it

#416

Post by Fckd »

mrxd wrote: post #104

I think misinformation and conspiracy theories on these platforms are a huge problem. A few years ago, some bad actors were successful in convincing Congress of a crazy conspiracy theory that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. The results were far-reaching. The US violated the UN charter and launched a disastrous war in Iraq where millions of Iraqis were killed, injured and displaced. They used a platfor…

Media houses should be held responsible for lies that they spread

Re: Facebook whistleblower says she wants to fix company, not harm it

#417

Post by sumedh »

bjt wrote: post #140
mrxd wrote: post #104

I think misinformation and conspiracy theories on these platforms are a huge problem. A few years ago, some bad actors were successful in convincing Congress of a crazy conspiracy theory that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. The results were far-reaching. The US violated the UN charter and launched a disastrous war in Iraq where millions of Iraqis were killed, injured and displaced. They used a platfor…

> A few years ago, some bad actors were successful in convincing Congress of a crazy conspiracy theory that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction ... They used a platform called The New York Times to spread their lies. Citation needed that this was a knowing conspiracy as opposed to bad intelligence. Setting that aside, there's a big difference between an institution like the NY Times getting it wrong on occ…

> Citation needed that this was a knowing conspiracy as opposed to bad intelligence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plame_affair

Re: Facebook whistleblower says she wants to fix company, not harm it

#418

Post by erlich »

code_duck wrote: post #301

>Frances Haugen: So, you know, you have your phone. You might see only 100 pieces of content if you sit and scroll on for, you know, five minutes. But Facebook has thousands of options it could show you. >The algorithm picks from those options based on the kind of content you've engaged with the most in the past. This is the primary reason I stopped using Facebook. I did everything I could to signal I did not wish to…

YouTube is exactly the same.

You have to install a browser extension to block politics from your suggested videos.

Twitter is great because they have “blocked words”. I maxed out my 200 words though and have to constantly swap them.

It’s undoubtedly true that they make huge money from hate and divisiveness.

This is not whistleblowing though. They are not breaking laws. And everyone already knows this.

People can choose if they want to work there or not. Just like at a cigarette company or fast food company or pharma company.

If things should be changed, the public should vote to regulate.

But they ain’t doing that. So it’s up to parents to educate their kids about personal responsibility and addiction.

Re: Facebook whistleblower says she wants to fix company, not harm it

#419

Post by mszcz »

worldsayshi wrote: post #414
mszcz wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aside from the mountains of odorless excrement I started seeing on facebook, this was the other reason I quit. It became unusable because once I scrolled past something it was next to impossible to find it again by either scrolling up or searching. Instead of seeing what people were up to I started seeing things they thought would keep me on the platform for as long as possible. Looking at it now, at least to me, it…

I'm curious if when most people say they "quit" Facebook they removed their account or if they just stopped using it. It feels like most people I know has stopped using it, except for messenger, but almost no-one has actually removed or closed down their account.

I didn't close the account. Once in a blue moon (once in a quater) I'll need to look up some shitty business's only online presence on facebook or contact someone on messenger.

Re: Facebook whistleblower says she wants to fix company, not harm it

#420

Post by sumedh »

michaelmrose wrote: post #330
poopypoopington wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think we should want good people to stop working for Facebook. That never made sense to me. Facebook isn't going anywhere, and as such it should be improved, and the only way that will happen is if good people keep going to work there and trying to make it better.

Why can't we just fine it 100% of revenue not profit until they can't keep the lights on or pay a lawyer to sue.

After Arthur Andersen was shutdown and ordinary people lost their jobs, the US govt has stopped taking down companies.
Post reply on HN