Live data from Hacker News

Whistleblower to Congress: Facebook products harm kids and democracy

npr.org

481–490 of 719 posts

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

#481
post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except what you are saying is not really true. Most conservatives want to reduce government power, not extend it. The left, on the other hand, universally wants to extend government reach. I would recommend reading "The Authoritarian Moment" which goes into detail as to how the left are basically winning: https://www.amazon.com/Authoritarian-Moment-Weaponized-Ameri... To quote from the book's introduction: "There are…

Conservative fear-mongering, recommending Ben Shapiro...am I really on HN?

You may not respect the writer, but what he is saying is demonstrably correct. The takeover of the Democratic party is not so well known (it happened fifty years ago), but there is a contemporary account [0]:

The election of 1972 has demonstrated that the “democratization” of the Democratic party under the guidance of such notions has only served to make it less representative of the interests and wishes of the majority of Americans than it has ever been before. For a majority party in the United States—especially if it is, as the Democrats have traditionally been, a party of change—faces a particular difficulty: that of drawing together a variety of potentially hostile racial, economic, cultural, and regional elements into a more or less united front against the vast power of corporate conservatism. In many respects the requirements of a coalition party, which must serve as a mechanism for brokerage among various interests, run counter to the plebiscitarian and individualistic currents that have long nourished both liberalism and radicalism in this country. The ethos of the New Politics in particular is hostile to the very idea of such a party. It has raised the social experience of its own affluent, educated constituency to what is, if not a world view, then at least a powerful conviction about the future of American politics. In this view, most of the “old” social problems which produced a politics of bread-and-butter self-interest are solved by the new affluence, or are well on their way to solution. The old interest groups—save perhaps for the blacks—are therefore superfluous. New forces are arising, not out of earthly needs, but out of the desires of those who have transcended such needs and are motivated only by the wish to do good.

But of course these new forces themselves constitute an interest group which differs from the “old” interest groups chiefly in its refusal to acknowledge the degree to which it hungers for political power and patronage. Unless steps can now be taken to restore the disaffected and disenfranchised elements of the Democratic party to influence, the party will remain in the control of this new interest group, and the Democrats will become the voice of an affluent minority speaking for and responsive to no one but itself.

[0] https://web.archive.org/web/20120828180557/http://www.commen...

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

#482

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, there are numerous first hand reports of Trump saying pretty racist stuff that seem premised on the idea of white supremacy. "Only black people could live like that" when describing Chicago, for instance.

"You ain't black if you don't vote for me" - Biden "You have poor kids and you have white kids" - Biden I don't know the context of the statement you mentioned, but I doubt it points to him being a white supremacist. Even what Biden says doesn't make someone a white supremacist (though his voting comment was bad), some things are just a slip of the tongue.

I wasn't discussing Biden, I'm sure he's said plenty of racist stuff (although the second one was clear a slip of the tongue).

"Only black people could live like that" when describing Chicago does not seem like a slip of the tongue, and seems more blatantly racist than either of the two things you've mentioned.

“He once asked me if I could name a country run by a black person that wasn’t a ‘shithole'", etc. etc.

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

#483

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What the government wants to accomplish with the Facebook hearings, political grandstanding and blathering, is a harness, control to their political power benefit. They're playing a political game of conquest. There is no scenario where they're going to destroy it. As a rule, DC doesn't like power competition, and they absolutely do not tolerate it from the private sector. One of the dumbest things Bill Gates ever di…

You are completely missing the direction in which this happens! The US government itself has little power, it is a shell that represents the interests of several capitalists. The best known are: the oil industry, the financial industry, the war industry (which works together with the other two), the pharmaceutical industry, along with several rich families like the Koch family, the Walton family, etc. These powerful…

Yes; another way of looking at it is that the US government represents the "dictatorship of Capital". Its job is to represent the interests of the capitalist class as a whole. This includes managing conflicts between individuals, firms, or industries that might otherwise threaten the stability of the system, even if they have to step on particular individuals, firms, or even industries in order to do so. That's how we got the New Deal; even though many big capitalist opposed it, their representatives as a whole saw it as necessary to prevent a Communist revolution, and therefore worth the cost.

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

#484
post #456

I fundamentally do not understand how we've gotten to a point where social media has become anything other than a completely optional indulgence that we engage with in our free time to gain not-critical ephemeral pleasure out of. This cultural addiction to social media has caused us to throw our beliefs and convictions right out the window. People on HN are talking about breaking up Facebook, passing new "social medi…

and be completely rid of their influence on you This isn't true at all. First, I'd lose my connection with a lot of people because Facebook keeps buying alternative messaging services and social group management products. Second, the people who are on Facebook can organize real-world events that affect me. Facebook might even actively recommend more people to join those events. Third, they lobby Congress and state/lo…

Ah, exactly the trap I see so many people fall for! You would not lose your connection with a lot of people because of Facebook, you would lose your connection with a lot of people because of the combined decisions of you and those people! Facebook isn't doing anything here other than being convenient -- it's your friends and family making the choice (along with you) to refuse to communicate with people outside of the FB platform.

And no, WhatsApp is not the "only contact method for most people and businesses", at least not due to any kind of technical or governmental restriction. It may be the only functional way to run a business or talk to people in some places, but Facebook didn't do that, those people and businesses did. They can choose to fix that within the course of a few minutes. They won't make that choice, but they absolutely could.

And so what if Facebook recommends specific events to people? Those people still retain agency over their choices, Facebook isn't making anyone do anything, people still decide how to behave, which events to attend, and generally how to navigate their time.

There's a great point in what you said, that I think is worth highlighting; at the root of the complaints about social media is this fundamental rejection of the idea that people are capable or willing to act on their own accord. It's this assumption that people wouldn't make these choices were it not for Facebook's influence, and I think that's completely wrong.

You can rid yourself of Facebook's influence over your life in a matter of minutes. You choose not to, and that's on you, not Facebook. It's a social media company, nothing more.

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

#485
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 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

So, which is it? Government "meddling" is bad except when it is good?

How does the system prevent business model bans from becoming a backdoor control over "what types of things people can say online"?

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

#486
post #458

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Blaming Facebook for societies' problems is far too easy. People manage(d) to get into civil wars, genocides, etc. without it quite well. Domestic US political issues will not be resolved by making Facebook disappear (why does it not seem to have similar impact everywhere?) - it might be an amplifier, but in the past folks have found all sorts of other ways to amplify or not even needed amplification because they cou…

>Blaming Facebook for societies' problems is far too easy. People manage(d) to get into civil wars, genocides, etc. People die eventually anyway, why should we blame murderers? The obvious answer is that speeding up a negative result is still bad even if that result is eventually inevitable. > Domestic US political issues will not be resolved by making Facebook disappear (why does it not seem to have similar impact e…

Maybe, maybe not. Taking Facebook away might now also act as an accelerant of divisions - hoping for a simple solution might not cut it.

Looking at social dynamics coupled with power politics one should always be prepared for really nasty outcomes even on well intentioned actions. If we as society decide that Facebook (and maybe other similar things) are too dangerous to have, lets do that right and not in a fit of anger allowing powerplays by other actors.

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

#487

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, FB or anyone else should be punished only after violating a law written down for everyone to see in advance of the action that supposedly violated that law. The road to hell is built by ignoring the rule of law to go after whoever is "bad" in the moment. There's an ancient legal principle called "nulla poena sina legal", which means "no punishment without a law". It's the foundation of all justice. Here's a clas…

I dont't disagree with the rule of law (to put it mildly) but not sure this is what is at stake here. Is there something nefarious if society legislates that a (upon closer examination) certain practices that were previously granted tacit or explicit approval are actually undesirable on a forward going basis ?

> Is there something nefarious if society legislates that a (upon closer examination) certain practices that were previously granted tacit or explicit approval are actually undesirable on a forward going basis?

No, of course not. But you have to articulate, in detail, what your new prohibitions are. You can't just declare people or organizations bad and punish them on the basis of their being bad without explaining what, specifically, is the conduct you're prohibiting going forward.

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

#488

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 like calling informing people about marginal tax rates "whistleblowing" because so many people don't understand how they work. You mean like these? * https://www.propublica.org/article/lord-of-the-roths-how-tec... * https://www.propublica.org/article/the-secret-irs-files-trov...

No, neither of those have anything meaningful to do with understanding marginal tax rates.

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

#489
post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Yes these are big forces, but they’re all pushing in different directions Are they though? All 3 of these groups have been pushing for only their narrative to be heard. Any other voice is misinformation at best and disinformation at worst.

If you feel this way, have you ever considered that you may be a victim of or participating in the dissemination of misinformation or disinformation?

The problem is sometimes these groups are wrong. It was misinformation to say that the virus COULD have come from a lab. Obviously we don't know for certain, but to even suggest it may have been from a lab was called misinformation. If you think that is misinformation than you are the one who is a victim of or participating in the dissemination of misinformation or disinformation.

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

#490
post #403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because they worked really hard to become indispensable and get people "hooked". You could make the same arguments about cigarettes, oxycontin or gambling.

I don't know if the analogy holds, considering most of the complaints around social media are that it's not accessible or open enough , and engagement with social media doesn't directly create value for Facebook. They derive that value from the associated ads, as opposed to the items you listed being a) costly for its users, and b) the actual product. Social media costs nothing.

Nobody is complaining about it not being open enough. Time on site and amount of content you view is the driver of most of their revenue. Their business is fundamentally constrained by the number of users they have and the waking hours of the ones that are on the platform. To grow they can either recruit more users or build an engaging enough product to get their user to pick it instead of youtube/netflix/tiktok/work/family.

As you mentioned, their customers are advertisers, "users" are there to serve them.

EDIT: before you make the same argument as you made in your reply to another comment, I don't use any Facebook related products and deleted my facebook account over 10 years ago.

I'd also suggest you look into some writing on the attention economy and whales in gaming. All ad supported media is in a race to the bottom to compete for your time. There's a reason why news look like reality shows now.

Post reply on HN