Live data from Hacker News

Whistleblower to Congress: Facebook products harm kids and democracy

npr.org

531–540 of 719 posts

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

#531
post #500

Earlier quoted context omitted.

whataboutism aside, the ehrlich quote "To err is human, but to really foul things up you need a computer". is salient, the news channels do eventually get okayed by human editors. Another salient point is how personalized the content can get with algorithms at the helm, everybody has a button that will set them off. Mass broad cast media is going to be further from the mark than something machine learning found. [0]…

My intention was less "what about this other bad thing" and more do we have an objective/consensus answer on what content should be promoted, or is it just who/what is doing the promotion.

The recurring claim is that going back to an unpromoted, chronological listing as it is a good concession to how it's literally mathematically impossible to algorithmically determine the truthfulness of statements.

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

#532

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 is important to discuss because its the INTENT behind what is being done, not so much HOW they are doing it technically - we 'technologists' love to know the how, but everyone needs to know the 'WHY' -- especially non-technical users.

Just because most people are non-technical does not make them stupid... and it doesnt remove their humanity, which, as unpopular as it may seem, throughout human's entire history there was more privacy than there has been in the last 75 years.

So, as we have evolved with actual privacy (due to lack of adequate/developed survellance technologies), and its idiotic to say that humans should have no expectation of privacy.

Then why are you wearing clothes? is the intimate nature of your body not referred to as "private parts" -- so there are "private thoughts" and "private personal details" that shouldnt just be available because "government" says so...

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

#533
post #469

The current discourse seems to be based mainly on insinuations that FB/IG actually harms people on the basis of a small fraction of struggling kids reporting that they feel worse when they look at Instagram. But, would anyone have predicted otherwise? That literally no teen who reports suicidal ideation would attribute their issues in part to what they see on social media? Or perhaps that's a strawman -- would we not…

Facebook funded research into how their products affect people's well-being. The studies showed a negative impact, so FB decided to bury the reports and then when they leaked, they argued that the research wasn't very good. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/09/16/faceboo... https://web.archive.org/web/submit?url=https%3A%2F%2Fabout.f...

Did the studies show a negative impact in any meaningful sense, though? "Some teens report that Instagram contributes to or triggers to mental health issues" is my understanding of the most supposedly-damning finding; I understand why this can be turned into a high-engagement news story with (at best) genuine ignorance on the part of journalist and editor about how hard it is to defensibly turn survey results into interesting causal psychological claims or (at worst) mild deception, but I really don't think it tells us much about whether a world with any plausibly different Instagram or no Instagram at all would have less extreme or less frequent mental health issues in teens overall, or even in many of the specific people who report these problems.

I don't think declining to publicize the results of an internal study that will be predictably grossly over-interpreted by media and therefore by the public is actually wrong, and I read the FB response you posted an archive link to as saying "this research has been grossly and selectively over-interpreted", not "this research isn't very good".

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

#534
post #469

The current discourse seems to be based mainly on insinuations that FB/IG actually harms people on the basis of a small fraction of struggling kids reporting that they feel worse when they look at Instagram. But, would anyone have predicted otherwise? That literally no teen who reports suicidal ideation would attribute their issues in part to what they see on social media? Or perhaps that's a strawman -- would we not…

Facebook funded research into how their products affect people's well-being. The studies showed a negative impact, so FB decided to bury the reports and then when they leaked, they argued that the research wasn't very good. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/09/16/faceboo... https://web.archive.org/web/submit?url=https%3A%2F%2Fabout.f...

Your link says "This research, some of which relied on input from only 40 teens, was designed to inform internal conversations about teens’ most negative perceptions of Instagram"

I think its a bit of a stretch to consider this as research.

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

#535

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> 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? How would FB being non-profit prevent individuals advertising products on their own page? This is…

> What you don't like is people being able to communicate easily with each other and reach a wide audience.

That's what the internet allowed with blogs. And blogs were (and are) relatively great! What's the difference? Blogs could not be shoved in your face by manipulating your "timeline" based on commercial considerations of "engagement". SEO has somewhat damaged blogs over time (another victim of ad-funded incentives), but IMHO it's a far better situation than Facebook.

> How would FB being non-profit prevent individuals advertising products on their own page?

Maybe it wouldn't but maybe that content wouldn't end up in everyone's face as often either. It's hard to say because we don't have a non-commercial social network to compare to. The best example of a non-commercial internet service is Wikipedia - unfortunately this isn't a great analog. It's hard to reverse engineer which of Facebook's worst features are there because of commercial considerations, but surely some of them are. Things like the algorithmic feed or suppressing content from people you explicitly follow (unless they pay up) are there to squeeze more money from existing users.

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

#536
post #515
post #455

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you sound like you are probably a lot more educated about politics than I am, so hopefully I can learn something from you, but I think one problem in practice is that collectivist views always seem to end in authoritarianism. Even in the U.S., the unions that resulted from collectivism became authoritarian and corrupt in their own right, the teacher's unions of America being a prime example of corruption and autho…

Amusing you seem to have some idea of consequences of politics movements - however, so-called conservatives (and libertarians), by unseating government power (which is the only organization large enough to challenge corporate power) leaves a power vacuum for wealthy/corporations to usurp that power. So anti-government-reguluation leads to a different flavor of fascism by corporate elites (all owned by the very wealth…

Somehow, I don't think that the best solution is to promote a governmental and economic structure where a massive central government spends much of its energy battling massive corporations, while they both collaborate to surveil, regulate, and control the citizens.

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

#537
post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you ever considered the possibility that sense is not objective? If you need reminding, sensible opinion was that masks didn't work. If you need reminding, sensible opinion was that a lab leak was impossible. If you need reminding, sensible opinion was that a vaccine wouldn't come for years. On and on. Sense is inherently subjective. You are subject to the same flaws of logic and reasoning as anyone else. People…

The way I used the word "sense" was in relation to "rationality" and not "feelings". With that definition of "sense", it can certainly be said to be objective.

It isn't. Thinking that it is objective is an example of non-rational thinking.

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

#538
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…

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?

“ Pretty entitled to believe you’re the only perspective worth listening to.”

Odd statement. I just stated my opinion on the matter. I encourage others getting lots of perspectives and making up their own minds.

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

#539
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…

Given the right’s decades long push to invalidate a woman’s right to obtain an abortion, I find it pretty hard to accept the idea that most conservatives aren’t authoritarian.

Left's perspective: women have a right to abort their unborn children.

Right's perspective: unborn children have a right to life and protection of the law.

Both sides are arguing a moral argument. Do women have a right to abort their babies? They certainly haven't had this right throughout the entirety of human civilization. Do unborn children deserve the protection of the law? Again, this wasn't really a major issue because abortions as a medical procedure didn't really exist until recently.

But trying to claim that conservatives are being authoritarian is where I think you are wrong. It's no more authoritarian to them than it is to enforce that you can't murder people outside the womb.

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

#540
post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Each "team" accuses the other of being authoritarian. So, when blue team is in charge, the reds think of themselves as anti-authoritarian. When red team is in charge, the blues think of themselves as anti-authoritarian. Basically, it's a rhetorical ploy to gain a few cheap points: When the side in charge does something you don't like, just call them "authoritarians," and your cause, whatever it is, becomes more appea…

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…

Conservatives want to increase the power of those government institutions that are the least accountable, and are most connected to the use of violence: the police and the military. They want to reduce the power of any government institutions that would serve to provide public accountability to other power centers in US society, mainly corporations and the wealthy. Corporations and the wealthy need police: to protect their property, to enforce property relations and quell unrest. They need the military: to ensure them access to foreign resources and foreign markets. They're also willing to take advantage of any other government expenditures that benefit them (infrastructure), but generally want to see any expenditures be under their control if not eliminated.

The Left ultimately wants to abolish government power and create a stateless, classless society. Leftists differ among themselves with regard to the value of government power in achieving this, with the two opposite poles of the discussion being anarchists and Marxist-Leninists. But in general, leftists realize that they have nowhere near the organizational power to even think about those goals, and just want to improve the material conditions of working-class people, who make up the majority of society.

The Democratic Party is far from being controlled by leftists: I can count the number of actual leftists in the US House on one hand, and in the Senate on one finger. The Democratic Party is a center-right party, dedicated above all to the stability of the existing ruling class. They sometimes virtue-signal cultural values that are shared with the left (feminism, anti-racism), but largely as a means of providing an outlet for those values that is not threatening to capitalism, and which can be co-opted to protect it.

Post reply on HN