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

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

#221

Post by yodsanklai » Tue, Oct 05, 2021, 4:01 PM UTC

spywaregorilla wrote: post #183

yodsanklai wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I do want Facebook harmed So much hate... Has Facebook really caused that much suffering to you? Seriously, just don't use it if you don't like it. For most people, it's just a social network where they post innocuous stories and stay connected with their friends.

And for others, it radicalizes them to conspiracy theories. "Just don't use it" isn't nice advice when you're mom's become an antivaxxer because facebook kept telling her about it and made it seem like local common consensus.

I don't know if people become antivaxxer because of FB. Antivaxxers and science deniers didn't wait for FB to believe in their theories. It's like blaming the telephone because terrorists use it.

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

#222

Post by rdtsc » Tue, Oct 05, 2021, 4:01 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…

> She said she 'loves' Facebook, and wants to fix it, not harm it.

I would guess it's a bit of a retrospective justification why she joined and stayed there for so long.

Facebook pays a lot. Compared to other industries, and compared to the tech industry as whole. However, publicly justifying that position is not acceptable in our society. Especially, after taking a moral stance as a whistleblower! "Yeah I wanted to make lots of money" does not sound compelling and would make her look bad. So there is the story of the radicalized friend, wanting to "help" Facebook etc. It's kind of like in the startup world, everyone should say they "want to change the world".

All that said, it should not detract from what she did. She is brave to come forward and hopefully it will lead to good outcomes.

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

#223

Post by aeturnum » Tue, Oct 05, 2021, 4:01 PM UTC

xboxnolifes wrote: post #126

chmsky00 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not “unknown” to technologists. How it all works is very unknown to the average parent. This thread seems to think the government needs to function with the logic of this thread in mind. Pretty entitled to believe you’re the only perspective worth listening to. Any individual is just “one of seven billion.” Shut the computers off and what perspective do you have that puts you above anyone else?

> It’s not “unknown” to technologists. I think the odd bit is that if this information isn't unknown to anyone in technology, even those not working on similar systems, then how is this "whistleblowing". It's like calling informing people about marginal tax rates "whistleblowing" because so many people don't understand how they work.

It's whistleblowing, in this instance, because Frances Haugen released a bunch of internal documents showing what everyone has been saying. Generally the term is applied to someone who releases information from inside a company or organization showing that their public statements have been deceptive or are out of sync with the internal point of view.

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

#224

Post by marcusverus » Tue, Oct 05, 2021, 4:01 PM UTC

lexapro wrote: post #113

thepasswordis wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whistleblowers are anti-authoritarian, which is typically a right wing/conservative position in contemporary politics. To the people downvoting me here: can you list some figures who have been protesting authoritarianism who are left-coded in contemporary American society? I'm thinking of wikileaks, edward snowden, glenn greenwald. These people have all been "accused" of being right wingers. The people protesting loc…

Isn't anti-authoritarian typically considered a leftist position? So the opposite of what you are saying?

If you want an anti-authoritarian ideology, you're looking for classical liberalism / libertarianism.

In the US, neither the left nor the right could be considered 'anti-authoritarian', as the left embraces broad government control of economic matters (a welfare state, environmental regulations, relatively high taxes), while the right embraces government control of social matters (regulating abortion, supporting 'traditional' marriage, etc.)

If you had a country with a perfectly free (laissez-faire) economy, but with strict social controls (mandatory Christian prayer in schools, abortion punishable by jail time, and mass deportations of illegal immigrants) leftists would call it an authoritarian nation.

If you had a country with a state-controlled economy (complete with cushy welfare state!), but with perfect social freedom (legal drugs, no regulation on abortion or sex work, and open migration) the right would call it an authoritarian nation.

While both right-wing and left-wing governments can exist without crossing the line into authoritarianism, only the classical libertarian's ideal government is by definition anti-authoritarian, because its focus is on the consent of the individual, whereas others are satisfied with the consent of a majority.

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

#225

Post by civilized » Tue, Oct 05, 2021, 4:02 PM UTC

sam0x17 wrote: post #205

ouid wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not if you mean "as the kids say". Sorry.

If you're involved in far-left movements on twitch and elsewhere, the kids definitely do say this and use liberal synonymously with centrist / to the right of the far left

Yep - the leftists started by disparaging neoliberals, but today they just say liberals.

Even someone like Elizabeth Warren, who is generally recognized as very progressive, falls under this heading because of her basically positive disposition towards capitalism.

And to the inevitable downvoters - go read leftist social media. I'm just stating easily verifiable facts here. I don't have a problem with leftists.

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

#226

Post by quadrangle » Tue, Oct 05, 2021, 4:02 PM UTC

suzzer99 wrote: post #182

wolfram74 wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The recurring argument she makes is just that stop using algorithmic content discovery that optimizes engagement because it correlates so strongly with extremism. You could almost get rid of all moderation and just go to chronological and it would improve the public health dimension.

I wish there was an option to make my Facebook feed chronological like there is with twitter.

There used to be that option. First it was default, then they switched it to opt-in, then they switched it to opt-in-repeatedly (every visit would default back to algorithm-curated), then they finally killed the chronological option.

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

#227

Post by mbesto » Tue, Oct 05, 2021, 4:02 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…

> 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.

Known and verified are two very distinct things. Does the public know that Facebook does this? Yes. Do they know it's harmful? Yes. Does Facebook also know this? Yes. Did they tell congress that they know this? No, in fact they told them the opposite.

The whistleblower is simply proving that unverified known - that Facebook has done research in its harm and knows they exist. Facebook would say "so what, we're doing stuff to fix it".

The most important part is the following: Facebook believes that its implementation for corrective actions of its harm is solely its responsibility. IMO, this is what is so dangerous and revealing. There is no one auditing other than taking "Facebook's word for it".

> Yes facebook allows some content that some would consider not to align with mainstream US narratives.

This is an incredibly disingenuous description of the situation. Facebook's own (non-public, now publicly leaked) research indicates that Facebook causes harm to teens mental health. The only "US narrative" here is the one backed up my the incredible amount of research supporting the growing issue of mental health in the US (and the world for that matter).

EDIT: To further my point and give you a comparison - when a similar thing happened with Tobacco the government was able to control behaviors by (1) forcing tobacco companies to put labels on their products and (2) tax tobacco such that it dissuaded customers to buy. Imagine if William Morris said "we know tobacco causes cancer so we've actively decided to sell 10 million less cartons of tobacco this year". No, they ended selling X million less cartons because of those two measures (among others).

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

#228

Post by cybernautique » Tue, Oct 05, 2021, 4:02 PM UTC

yodsanklai wrote: post #159

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 do want Facebook harmed So much hate... Has Facebook really caused that much suffering to you? Seriously, just don't use it if you don't like it. For most people, it's just a social network where they post innocuous stories and stay connected with their friends.

I do not interact with Facebook, the product.

Facebook, the company, increasingly has their grimy paws in every networked enterprise. This is a multibillion dollar corporation dead-set on tracking every individual on earth since before their conception.

Yes, Facebook (the maniacal stalker, their employees, and their demonic horde of advertisers) has caused that much suffering to me.

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

#229

Post by Factorium » Tue, Oct 05, 2021, 4:02 PM UTC

mikepurvis wrote: post #92

Factorium wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Magazines (fashion, fitness, sport, etc) have this effect by virtue of advertisers not wanting to be seen in a "free" publication, but most of their revenue still comes from ads, which is why you continue to still receive new issues for months after you supposedly canceled, even though you nominally are paying for it, all the incentives are for them to pretend you're a paying customer when you in fact are not. But I…

It would be a pretty easy legal definition. Start with services that have over 100 million users:

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

And exclude messaging services eg. Telegram, or platforms which are focused on technical or professional knowledge sharing (eg. Quora, LinkedIn, Wikipedia).

I think the risk would be conglomeration - platforms would partner up so that the minimum fee could give access to multiple services. You'd also want to avoid the fee from just becoming a 'token' with advertising still driving 90%+ of revenue.

Old-fashioned antitrust enforcement might still be necessary (eg. separating Facebook from Instagram and Whatsapp), as well as setting a maximum % of gross revenue that can come from advertising, maybe 75%.

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

#230

Post by hunterb123 » Tue, Oct 05, 2021, 4:03 PM UTC

rajin444 wrote: post #189

nemo44x wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This also isn't negative for free speech as a value Free speech is a right in the USA, not a "value". It isn't something we strive for; it is a basic right. Things like film ratings are not legally biding for example. The industry took it upon themselves to create ratings as guidelines to parents. > - Require age verification by law and ban kids from using it. We ban kids from alcohol we should ban them from this.…

Free speech is only a right as far as the constitution guarantees (which is limited). Personally I’d like US culture to fully embrace the value of free speech, but support for it generally depends on if your favorite political party is in power. If we truly valued free speech we would not have all this debate over censorship.

The Bill of Rights is a list of God given rights the government CANNOT take away from you, not something they give you.