Whistleblower to Congress: Facebook products harm kids and democracy • Hacker News Board

Re: Whistleblower to Congress: Facebook products harm kids and democracy

#81

Post by throwaway894345 » Tue, Oct 05, 2021, 3:34 PM UTC

Factorium wrote: post #56

fighterpilot wrote: post #12

The two best ideas I've heard: - Require age verification by law and ban kids from using it. We ban kids from alcohol we should ban them from this. - Require ID verification by law but allow people to use a fake name. Fixes the bots issue and the kid depression issue. The market isn't going to get there by itself because of competition. If insta implements this then they lose market share to snap. So there's a strong…

There's an even simpler solution: ban free social media. Require each platform to charge a minimum of $x/user/year. You remove kids by default (no credit card/bank card), and the focus of product managers is less on driving addictive browsing, and more on driving renewals (presumably through quality features, content, and fostering community). The customer is no longer the advertisers (or shady Governmental data scra…

> You remove kids by default (no credit card/bank card

Children have parents and many of them will shell out thousands of dollars a year so their kid can buy Fortnite skins. I don’t imagine a credit card requirement will keep kids off of social media.

For the purposes of addressing some of the data privacy concerns, I think it would be even easier to just restrict the collection and/or sale of personal information. Simply charging for the service doesn’t prevent or disincentivize companies from also selling your data.

Re: Whistleblower to Congress: Facebook products harm kids and democracy

#82

Post by colinmhayes » Tue, Oct 05, 2021, 3:34 PM UTC

roody15 wrote: post #31

To me this is a fake story being promoted as a way to further a political narrative. Nothing the whistleblower has revealed is shocking or previously unknown. Yes facebook tweaks an algorithm on your news feed to drive engagement and make money. Yes facebook allows some content that some would consider not to align with mainstream US narratives. My two cents this is an attempt to force facebook to kowtow to the US an…

This was absolutely unknown to probably at least 90% of the people who use facebook. People on HN largely don't use facebook from what I can tell because they've seen all this stuff that facebook does.

Re: Whistleblower to Congress: Facebook products harm kids and democracy

#83

Post by lapetitejort » Tue, Oct 05, 2021, 3:34 PM UTC

Factorium wrote: post #56

fighterpilot wrote: post #12

The two best ideas I've heard: - Require age verification by law and ban kids from using it. We ban kids from alcohol we should ban them from this. - Require ID verification by law but allow people to use a fake name. Fixes the bots issue and the kid depression issue. The market isn't going to get there by itself because of competition. If insta implements this then they lose market share to snap. So there's a strong…

There's an even simpler solution: ban free social media. Require each platform to charge a minimum of $x/user/year. You remove kids by default (no credit card/bank card), and the focus of product managers is less on driving addictive browsing, and more on driving renewals (presumably through quality features, content, and fostering community). The customer is no longer the advertisers (or shady Governmental data scra…

Being able to pay reddit to remove ads is one of the reasons I like the site. Sure, the fact I'm paying probably makes my data more valuable to ad companies, but at least at reddit I won't see any.

Their increasing push to gamify awards, while selling a currency to do so does annoy me though.

Re: Whistleblower to Congress: Facebook products harm kids and democracy

#84

Post by handrous » Tue, Oct 05, 2021, 3:35 PM UTC

Mizza wrote: post #45

I find it weird for a whistleblower to be so "lib", as the kids say. She said she 'loves' Facebook, and wants to fix it, not harm it. I don't want Facebook fixed and I do want Facebook harmed. I don't want the government to meddle with what types of things people can say online, I want them to ban the business model of stalking people online and selling intimate details of their lives. If the problem is Facebook choo…

> I don't want Facebook fixed and I do want Facebook harmed. I don't want the government to meddle with what types of things people can say online, I want them to ban the business model of stalking people online and selling intimate details of their lives. If the problem is Facebook choosing profits over public good, then cut off the profits. This is obvious.

Bingo. Make stalking at scale the same as stalking by creeping in the bushes outside someone's house or following them around town. Tracking everything people do isn't a "business model"—it's a crime.

Re: Whistleblower to Congress: Facebook products harm kids and democracy

#85

Post by AlexandrB » Tue, Oct 05, 2021, 3:35 PM UTC

convexfunction wrote: post #21

The clearest take I've seen on this: https://www.piratewires.com/p/bombshell The money quote, in my opinion: > The thing is, we’re not really asking for Facebook to control itself, we’re asking Facebook to control other people.

> The thing is, we’re not really asking for Facebook to control itself, we’re asking Facebook to control other people.

But it already does. That's it's job. That's what advertising is for. I suppose "control" is a tad strong, but that's the dream of every advertiser - to deliver a message to exactly right person at the exactly right time so that they take a desired action (buy, vote, post, etc).

Whenever this debate comes up I can't help but wonder what a non-commercial (non-profit?) version of Facebook would look like. I'm sure people would still post stuff for likes, but would it still be a career path for "influencers" where they use their popularity to push products of dubious value with little disclosure? Would there be an "algorithmic feed" whose contents you have little control over? Would posts by your friends be drowned out by "high engagement content"?

Advertising fundamentally alters the medium that carries it. It happened with cable TV (remember cliffhangers before commercial breaks?), and it has happened to the internet. Let's not pretend Facebook's shitty products are somehow the natural state of things. Better social media ("prestige" social media?) might be possible.

Re: Whistleblower to Congress: Facebook products harm kids and democracy

#86

Post by thepasswordis » Tue, Oct 05, 2021, 3:35 PM UTC

Something about this just feels really "off" to me.

This is a "whistleblower" who is blowing the whistle on facebook not doing enough to control how you think.

I don't want facebook or twitter or reddit or anybody else deciding what it's okay for me to talk about or think about. I gather that this woman does, but the framing that she is just "whistleblowing" is absurd to me.

It's also extremely weird to me that she's now testifying in front of congress like 2 days after her "whistleblowing".

Re: Whistleblower to Congress: Facebook products harm kids and democracy

#87

Post by epgui » Tue, Oct 05, 2021, 3:35 PM UTC

stickfigure wrote: post #76

shadowgovt wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sometimes, people run so fast from the 1984 future where a big unfettered government decides their fate that they trip and fall right into the Snow Crash future where big unfettered corporations decide their fate. There's no simple answers here.

I will categorically say that I'll take unfettered corporations over unfettered government every single time . I can quit Facebook. Good luck quitting your government. These are not remotely equivalent things, and I bristle every time I hear someone suggest it.

Government moves slower and works for the commons (at least it is supposed to).

Corporations cannot solve every kind of problem, and some form of government is inevitable, necessary and desirable.

Re: Whistleblower to Congress: Facebook products harm kids and democracy

#88

Post by ben-gy » Tue, Oct 05, 2021, 3:35 PM UTC

jokowueu wrote: post #54

trutannus wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Require ID verification I'll pass on putting my personal ID in the hands of an organization that sells data as a business . No matter how many flimsy laws they put in place to ban selling my PII, you'd have to be born yesterday to think that won't just delay the sale this new treasure-trove of information.

HIPAA isn't a flimsy law and works quite well . Something similar can be used

HIPAA is PHI - wouldn’t apply in this example

Re: Whistleblower to Congress: Facebook products harm kids and democracy

#89

Post by cheeseomlit » Tue, Oct 05, 2021, 3:36 PM UTC

btmiller wrote: post #33

convexfunction wrote: post #21

The clearest take I've seen on this: https://www.piratewires.com/p/bombshell The money quote, in my opinion: > The thing is, we’re not really asking for Facebook to control itself, we’re asking Facebook to control other people.

But they are the ones that have enabled the mass accessibility of many-to-many communication. That should come with great responsibility.

With great responsibility comes great power

Re: Whistleblower to Congress: Facebook products harm kids and democracy

#90

Post by unethical_ban » Tue, Oct 05, 2021, 3:36 PM UTC

Factorium wrote: post #56

fighterpilot wrote: post #12

The two best ideas I've heard: - Require age verification by law and ban kids from using it. We ban kids from alcohol we should ban them from this. - Require ID verification by law but allow people to use a fake name. Fixes the bots issue and the kid depression issue. The market isn't going to get there by itself because of competition. If insta implements this then they lose market share to snap. So there's a strong…

There's an even simpler solution: ban free social media. Require each platform to charge a minimum of $x/user/year. You remove kids by default (no credit card/bank card), and the focus of product managers is less on driving addictive browsing, and more on driving renewals (presumably through quality features, content, and fostering community). The customer is no longer the advertisers (or shady Governmental data scra…

Okay, they'll charge 0.01 per year and you've just kicked every poor person (or person without a bank card) off social media.

Social media, for all its terrible ills, is the primary way many people get their real news too. By news, I mean municipal updates, weather alerts, local events, etc.

I don't think putting up a financial barrier to that by law is the solution.