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

301–310 of 734 posts

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

#301

Post by handrous »

hunterb123 wrote: post #93
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…

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.

Make spying on people illegal, even when a computer does it to billions of people rather than one creep doing it to one person. If you have to collect info about people to provide a product or service, make it strictly illegal to transfer or sell that info or anything derived from it. Don't like it, get into another business. No one's making you collect people's info. Yes, this should apply to e.g. credit card companies, not just big tech. This'd need some fine points hammered out (don't laws always?) but it's not that crazy.

Do something to make platforms responsible when their "algorithms" promote something. Not just hosting it, but when they promote it. Don't like it? Don't curate, then, or have a human do it so you're sure nothing you're deliberately promoting is shitty enough to land you on the wrong end of a lawsuit. "But how will tech companies show every visitor a totally different home page of content they're promoting (but in no way responsible for), and how will Youtube find a way to recommend Jordan Peterson and Joe Rogan videos next to every damn thing? How will tech companies make every part of their 'experience' algorithmically-selected, personalized recommendations of content they farmed from randos?" They won't, they won't, and... they won't. You're welcome.

Make data leaks so cripplingly expensive that no company would dare hoard personal data it didn't absolutely need to get by.

Force the quasi-official credit reporting agencies not to be so shitty. In particular, "freezes" should be free and should be the default, alerts for activity should be free, and access to one's own info should be on demand at any time, not once per year per agency. Or just outlaw the bastards completely, IDGAF.

I dunno, lots of things we could do to make the current personal data free-for-all less hellish.

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

#302

Post by vpfaulkner »

hunterb123 wrote: post #93
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…

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.

A lot of these issues seem difficult to regulate but one that seems more realistic is usage by minors.

What if social media platforms required all minors to have their account associated with a parent account? The parent could monitor activity, institute time limits, etc.

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

#303

Post by nradov »

asdff wrote: post #200
nradov wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How could legislators draft such a law in a way that wouldn't be voided for vagueness? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vagueness_doctrine?wprov=sfla1

Probably with the help of psychologists who can offer more concrete definitions of addictive behavior and dark patterns than you or I.

Since psychology is mostly unscientific bunk, hopefully the courts would put a stop to that type of legislative overreach.

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

#304

Post by coolspot »

cratermoon wrote: post #258
nradov wrote: post #147

The title here doesn't match the article headline. The documents make Facebook look bad but so far I haven't seen anything incriminating , in the sense of violating a US Federal criminal statute. Are there credible allegations of something like securities fraud or wire fraud here? Note that there is no generally no law against disseminating incorrect or "harmful" information.

The fact that it's possible to question whether or not any illegal behavior has been revealed doesn't mean that Facebook didn't cause – and is not causing – any harm doesn't mean there's no basis to Haugen's revelations. Rather, it means that under the current regulatory regime, there are no penalties for behavior harmful to consumers. That the only recourse is to file with the SEC alleging harm to the stockholders i…

IMO Twitter and Reddit cause more mental harm than all FB properties combined.

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

#305

Post by kriskrunch »

mdoms wrote: post #223
farcebook wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One, most of the mainstream news has at least basic editorial processes in place that do a rudimentary check on truthiness. Facebook, along with some of the sketchier news outlets, are the opposite: they profit off (and optimize for) disinformation. Two, it's a matter of scale. Facebook reaches a far larger audience and has far more detail into their preferences and can nano-target personalized stories for them and c…

> One, most of the mainstream news has at least basic editorial processes in place that do a rudimentary check on truthiness. Come on, man. There are just so many counter examples, from the "paper of record" NYT (1619 Project) to MSNBC (Russia nonsense) to Fox News (literally everything) to Rolling Stone (A Rape on Campus) I could sit here all day listing outright lies and untruths published in the pages of mainstrea…

Agreed. I'll just add, specifically the media's agenda is making money, and just like FB it affects their ethical obligation to society.

The surge in click-bait and outrageous lies is eroding one of the pillars of freedom: the freedom of the press. Now, the press is largely viewed as untrustworthy by 60% of the US population.

Source: https://news.gallup.com/poll/321116/americans-remain-distrus...

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

#306

Post by Tamrind7 »

malandrew wrote: post #157
thrwn_frthr_awy wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personalized advertising.

I personally find the personalized advertising great. A lot of the time I am shown things that are actually useful/valuable to me. I think a lot of the value really depends on the individual. If you're engaging in productive activities like hobbies, you get valuable targeted ads. If you're engaging in activities that are low value like signaling to others in myriad ways, you probably get adds for things like disposab…

All ads are fundamentally ugly in the sense that their effect is the opposite of a great work of art or entertainment. Ads are fundamentally just some pathetic person's selfish attempt to control what other people to think and feel in order to increase their own power through financial profit. In a sane world they would all be banned. Ads exist in their current deranged and disgusting form because contemporary humans have been selectively bred through social engineering to be submissive, cowardly, selfish, and stupid. Personalized/targeted advertising is not something that needs to be discussed.

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

#307

Post by unethical_ban »

shmatt wrote: post #36

There is something that doesn't sit right with me about the whistleblower. Yes, she is a data scientist which gives her many many extra points. But, she was a PM for 2 years in FAANG. Her actual scope of the what was going on in FB as a huge org, as she's trying to comment on (the "I want to fix FB" quotes from 60 minutes) Everyone I know who works in FAANG, FB specifically, and PMs even more specifically, really hav…

>Everyone I know who works in FAANG, FB specifically, and PMs even more specifically, really have little idea of whats going on in the bigger picture.

First, I disagree with your assertion, based on my experience in, well, working anywhere. Two years as a PM in the field on which she is blowing the whistle is not a lack of credibility (others are saying her PM experience at FB dealt with the kinds of issues that would make her pretty informed).

Second, if what you say is true, then what kind of Hell is Facebook? This behemoth of a company, this pillar of society is somehow so large that only a handful of privileged overseers can possibly understand its mechanics?

Tear it down, then.

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

#308

Post by dirkt »

plandis wrote: post #282

If you don’t like Facebook just don’t use Facebook, WhatsApp, or Instagram. Don’t know why so many people here think parents and adults are not capable of regulating themselves and their kids. It’s honestly condescending to think you know better than your fellow citizens if you’re arguing for government intervention.

While I agree, and while I do that myself, the social pressure to use Facebook/WhatsApp/Instagram is immense. And it's worse for kids.

I have to constantly explain to people why I don't use those, and they still keep trying to convince me that I should.

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

#309

Post by nradov »

cratermoon wrote: post #268
elliekelly wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They’ve lied to the public and (if the lies were material to investors) that’s securities fraud.

Which says more about the emasculated regulatory regime in the US than anything else. There are no penalties, or none of any real meaning, for causing to harm to consumers or the community, but violating the holy tenet of maximizing shareholder value is almost a cardinal sin.

Every single one of us has caused some harm to the community at some point in our lives. That doesn't mean it should be a criminal offense.

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

#310

Post by haroldp »

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…

Please stop down-voting thoughtful comments such as this just because you disagree with them.
Post reply on HN