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

Facebook Whistleblower Leaks Thousands of Pages of Incriminating Internal Docs

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 734 posts

Re: Facebook Whistleblower Leaks Thousands of Pages of Incriminating Internal Docs

#271

Post by onemoresoop »

zabatuvajdka wrote: post #159
hunterb123 wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To clarify, can you specify exactly what law you would like made? What do you want to be done exactly ? I would rather take the stance of feed algorithms and moderation logs be PUBLICLY available. Transparency instead of censorship.

In my opinion if social media is important to society the way it seems there should be a government funded social network for users and businesses. In the USA like NPR and PBS. The problem is companies selling peoples data and optimizing the algorithms on probability. Instead what if everyone paid some taxes to have a social network which helps people interact and businesses promote themselves, you can get rid of the…

You better be sure the incumbents would fight tooth and nail make this look like a very unattractive idea and lobby heavily to make sure it will never happen.

Re: Facebook Whistleblower Leaks Thousands of Pages of Incriminating Internal Docs

#272

Post by cblconfederate »

ozzythecat wrote: post #141

I don’t personally use FB and don’t have a very favorable view of their products. I would, however, like to see the same level scrutiny applied to the general American media, especially the news media. FB has come in and started eating their lunch. There’s a deeper problem here, and it feels more like the powers that he want to take down FB. I’m not denying any allegation made against FB, but why is it that Fox News,…

The press and media are an old and mature ecosystem that has legal framework around it . These new companies are using free content, and sometimes free moderation but still act like the press. There's something unsustainable about that and sooner or later the society and the law would have to deal with it.

There's something particularly unethical about companies that hide behind "User generated content" and "external fact-checkers".

Re: Facebook Whistleblower Leaks Thousands of Pages of Incriminating Internal Docs

#273

Post by drdeca »

vladd wrote: post #225
jimkleiber wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really appreciate this point. I often see it as written rules (laws) and unwritten rules (ethics). If something breaks the unwritten rules we have about how people are supposed to interact with each other, then we often codify that rule into law. Many people will say "I didn't break the law" but where many people would say that person did break an unwritten law. > There should be no question, that what FB is doing…

If a poem (or book) makes 10% of its readers more likely to become geniuses and contribute to solving world problems such as cancer, but 0.1% of its readers are more likely to commit suicide, should that book be banned by law? Today's online society is based on posts created by content creators around the world, where algorithms can barely scratch the surface at interpreting their content, humans don't scale in revie…

if magic books were real, then the way we would have to treat books would be much different.

Re: Facebook Whistleblower Leaks Thousands of Pages of Incriminating Internal Docs

#274

Post by cratermoon »

hunterb123 wrote: post #110
the_snooze wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is straight-up deflection. It makes sense to start somewhere, so why not the biggest player in town? That would be Facebook, with billions of active users. None of those cable channels are even close to 100s of millions of viewers.

Main stream media and social media are recursive. Social media shares main stream media stories. Main stream media stories use social media as sources. Social media shares social media source as story.

But which of the those two have made doing the harmful amplification for profit a business model?

Re: Facebook Whistleblower Leaks Thousands of Pages of Incriminating Internal Docs

#275

Post by jmcgough »

asdff wrote: post #217
hunterb123 wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point was a cig always causes cancer because it burns tobacco, so you need a banner to warn users. A social media behemoth does not need to use doom scrolling or private algorithms to be a social media site.

My nintendo DS from 15 years ago gave me an eye strain warning every time i started it up and it doesn't always cause eye strain, only misuse does and I know that thanks to the informative banner.

I love that Nintendo is very aware of the potential negative effects of their products and games and tries to inform users / mitigate.

Even when it comes to encouraging positive play between users - in the new Pokemon MOBA (games known for their toxicity) there's no text chat, only communication with a few emotes you can show. Some of their decisions make for arguably worse games for "hardcore" gamers (like the way they rank users in smash, or how they focus on more casual-style in-game tournaments or make matchmaking harder) but they sacrifice that in favor of a more positive general experience, especially important since children play their games.

Re: Facebook Whistleblower Leaks Thousands of Pages of Incriminating Internal Docs

#276

Post by ethbr0 »

asdff wrote: post #187
parineum wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> sin taxes How about we don't let the state decide what I get to do with my body (and mind)?

Curious, do you not wear seatbelts too? Opt for asbestos insulation since its better than anything on the market today? Plumb your home with lead since its more durable and flexible? Use leaded gas because its better for your older engine? The state acts on the collective when the public is not making good decisions for themselves and causing net harm onto themselves, usually with the public paying the price. Sometim…

As another example:

- The US prohibits people under 21 years old from buying alcohol, and allows those over 21 to do so.

- The US prohibits anyone of any age from driving a motor vehicle over a certain blood alcohol level.

This is something which causes health and community harm (alcohol), which we have allowed and denied to people in certain ways.

And honestly, I think struck a fair balance between individual liberty and social liberty/good.

I don't think anyone would argue that everyone should be allowed to drive anywhere, as drunk as they wanted to, at whatever age they wanted to.

Re: Facebook Whistleblower Leaks Thousands of Pages of Incriminating Internal Docs

#277

Post by finfinfin »

vladd wrote: post #225
jimkleiber wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really appreciate this point. I often see it as written rules (laws) and unwritten rules (ethics). If something breaks the unwritten rules we have about how people are supposed to interact with each other, then we often codify that rule into law. Many people will say "I didn't break the law" but where many people would say that person did break an unwritten law. > There should be no question, that what FB is doing…

If a poem (or book) makes 10% of its readers more likely to become geniuses and contribute to solving world problems such as cancer, but 0.1% of its readers are more likely to commit suicide, should that book be banned by law? Today's online society is based on posts created by content creators around the world, where algorithms can barely scratch the surface at interpreting their content, humans don't scale in revie…

Looks like you are willfully ignoring Facebook’s own findings. They know that polarizing content is more engaging yet harmful… and they choose to amplify it anyway.

The same old argument that it’s hard therefore let’s not do anything is not applicable.

Facebook is not a neutral platform that just shows all posts from your friends in a chronological order. They are actively manipulating the stream and are fully responsible for what you consume.

Re: Facebook Whistleblower Leaks Thousands of Pages of Incriminating Internal Docs

#278

Post by hunterb123 »

cratermoon wrote: post #274
hunterb123 wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Main stream media and social media are recursive. Social media shares main stream media stories. Main stream media stories use social media as sources. Social media shares social media source as story.

But which of the those two have made doing the harmful amplification for profit a business model?

The main stream media of course. FB makes money on ads.

FB's media is organic from users. The MSM is orchestrated.

Re: Facebook Whistleblower Leaks Thousands of Pages of Incriminating Internal Docs

#279

Post by hef19898 »

downandout wrote: post #242
woeirua wrote: post #77

I think a lot of people are choosing to ignore that a lot of companies have done things in the past that were not illegal at the time of action. However, those actions were later decided to be made illegal because the behavior was deemed to be antithetical to our values. For example, Standard Oil did not break any laws in its ruthless consolidation of the nascent oil industry. In fact, it exploited the law to allow i…

Not everyone has the same moral compass. It isn’t even clear that the whistleblower herself was guided by concern for society: she first went to the SEC with these complaints. That’s a weird place to go with concerns about social media’s impact on society. I wonder why? Perhaps…just maybe…it was because the SEC will give her 10-30% of any fines levied against Facebook, leading to a potential windfall of $1 billion or…

How about she went to SEC because for certain things that the right place to go to? And the SEC has to fine FB first, which would mean that FB committed illegal acts. That alone is behavior that needs to be encouraged, exposing corporate wrong doing is a net positively for society.

Re: Facebook Whistleblower Leaks Thousands of Pages of Incriminating Internal Docs

#280

Post by onemoresoop »

mrweasel wrote: post #150
woeirua wrote: post #77

I think a lot of people are choosing to ignore that a lot of companies have done things in the past that were not illegal at the time of action. However, those actions were later decided to be made illegal because the behavior was deemed to be antithetical to our values. For example, Standard Oil did not break any laws in its ruthless consolidation of the nascent oil industry. In fact, it exploited the law to allow i…

Facebook may not be doing anything illegal, but it is immoral. While morality is subjective, and not enforceable, the public needs to know what is happening, so they can make their mind about supporting a given company.

Facebook is not doing anything illegal only because there are in relatively new space the law hasn't caught up with yet.
Post reply on HN