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

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

#611

Post by therealdrag0 » Tue, Oct 05, 2021, 6:49 PM UTC

LordHumungous wrote: post #378

Nobody seems to care to look at the actual data she provided. It's weak imo. 15% of teens say FB makes their lives worse, 34% say it makes their lives better , and 51% say neither. This is an online poll. Among teens who are depressed, more say that FB/IG has a negative impact. Well ok, a more negative response is exactly what you'd expect from people who are reporting to be depressed. Then there's the supposed impac…

Totally agree.

Also before Insta it was teen magazines that were raged about. How is it news? Also one statement by FB said one of the studies (I haven't followed how many or which is which) was a poll of 40 people.... FOURTY PEOPLE. That's beyond meaningless.

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

#612

Post by hogFeast » Tue, Oct 05, 2021, 6:50 PM UTC

epgui wrote: post #559

hogFeast wrote: post #537

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

This disagreement results from your inability to accept a definition to work from (ie.: the premise).

I gave you a definition (once again, you are starting from the viewpoint that my view is invalid because I refuse a definition...a pattern is appearing).

The actual epistemic logic is more complex but, for the purposes of this discussion, the point is that you can define these things as things that reasonable people can disagree about because: there is no clear evidence, and people will weigh that evidence differently. It makes no sense to say that these things should be removed from the internet because they are "irrational"...Galileo was regarded as "irrational" too, the nature of new information is that it breaks down existing systems of thought.

To be clear too, believing in rational universalism is an example of irrational thinking. No "rationalist" philosopher ever believed in universalism. Theories like logical positivism were explicitly non-universal in regarding some things as unknowable. The only real application of universalism has, typically, been in German fascist political philosophy with ideas like the Volk...it is in an inherently political/cultural concept...again, the irony of this is a bit much but the precise reason why these theories exist is because they are people who think that we just need to shut discussion down.

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

#613

Post by megaman821 » Tue, Oct 05, 2021, 6:50 PM UTC

Steltek wrote: post #588

megaman821 wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everything around us is designed to manipulate our mood and behavior. * The Oreo's packing looks so inciting but the food offers nearly 0 nutritional value. * The ad for that new game looks so cool but my time would but better spent on almost anything else. * That car is so fast but it would be cheaper and better for the environment to drive a Prius. I would rather have the freedom to choose poorly than have the Gove…

You've listed things that are already regulated, in some cases heavily, by the government. And yes, specific things in those industries have been outright banned by the government. You can't buy Coke with cocaine in it. Ads can't straight up lie to you. You can't buy a car without seatbelts or headlights. If your commercial business is to promote certain content over others, regulating that function is worth a debate…

Ok, lets go to the scorecard then. How would you say the governments regulations for the topics of obesity, misleading ads, climate change, car safety? Its a mixed bag.

Regulation is necessary but hard. It should be a last resort not the first thing that gets tried. I don't think we are there with Facebook. Maybe some minor regulations, but most people on HN are saying to blow the whole thing up.

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

#614

Post by colordrops » Tue, Oct 05, 2021, 6:50 PM UTC

colordrops wrote: post #282

calrueb wrote: post #143

I like to imagine there are a bunch of Facebook Homefeed engineers out there who ran dozens experiments, tuning this-and-that, and found the ones that boosted revenue, and user engagement by X%. No one thought too deeply at _why_ some experiments were successful. Perhaps it was chalked up as "our new ML model is matching users to content they care about more efficiently". Then they shipped it, and everyone celebrated…

I worked with Facebook for a short period in 2011 when at a large social gaming company, and it was completely obvious then that they were sociopaths that intentionally took advantage of base instincts for profit. These people made a game of it, and openly slept around on their spouses as a show of being part of the in-group. I can't imagine that its gotten more "disconnected" and better since then. I understand that…

For those downvoting, I should have made it clear that the FB employees, as well as employees at the company I worked at, explicitly discussed using psychological tricks to milk people, literally talking about them like animals, such as cows and whales.

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

#615

Post by passivate » Tue, Oct 05, 2021, 6:54 PM UTC

rnd0 wrote: post #605

passivate wrote: post #519

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If somebody is going to believe in crackpot stuff, then it doesn't matter who or what the source is. I don't agree with the idea that we need to coddle the masses.

It does matter, because FB (social media such as Reddit and Twitter as well) create echochambers which amplify crackpot stuff and encourages people to act out in destructive ways (see basically all of the RL anti-mask agitation) in a way that was not happening before social media. Social media creates literal mobs, with literal (tiki) torches if not pitchforks. Yes, the difference between two cranks bitching over cof…

I disagree. We need to bring back personal accountability. "Facebook made me do it" is not an acceptable excuse for violence.

Also, we need to inoculate the mind from these 'meme' viruses with a stronger foundation in basic science. I'm not syaing its an overnight or easy thing to do, but the IMHO I think it would address the core problem.

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

#616

Post by LordHumungous » Tue, Oct 05, 2021, 6:54 PM UTC

makomk wrote: post #443

mbesto wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is news to me and frankly makes no sense. How does the data say that FB both improved mental health and harmed it? Can you share your source?

That seems pretty straightforward to me - there are a huge number of teenagers who use Facebook, some of whom say that it improved their mental health and a smaller group who say it made it worse. The media reporting only talked about the teens who said Facebook was harming their mental health rather than the broader picture. Which, if accurate, would mean that closing down Facebook would actually hurt teens' mental…

Also there's the problem of a lack of a control group in this data. If you asked people in an online questionnaire how the Coca-Cola corporation was affecting their mental health what sort of responses would you get?

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

#617

Post by samstave » Tue, Oct 05, 2021, 6:55 PM UTC

xboxnolifes wrote: post #565

samstave wrote: post #532

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 the…

I agree it's important to discuss the WHY in things, but I don't see how that applies to my confusion around the usage of the term "whistleblower" at all.

I think my point was that the whistleblower is telling of the WHY.

If you never have the WB telling of the why, then you cant put any personal context that affects you, and as such, have a ho-hum attitude to the situation, when one should be taking it much more seriously...

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

#618

Post by joelbluminator » Tue, Oct 05, 2021, 6:56 PM UTC

dukeofdoom wrote: post #586

joelbluminator wrote: post #524

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's possible but the economic and social upheavel would be massive. Not a good scenario for anyone I think.

I'm sure there were people walking around saying that in 1775. Yet Greater good prevailed, and US got its independence from Britain. Since its a Democratic Union, I hope it can be dissolved in a democratic way. Is the worry that each state would have fight to get independence?

I am not a fan of histotical analogies like that. One very likely outcome of a U.S breakup is a global economic depression. Another one is Chinese hegemony. I am not a fan of either. Sure, it might work out alright. But it might not.

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

#619

Post by skulk » Tue, Oct 05, 2021, 6:58 PM UTC

quotemstr wrote: post #351

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…

Let's be honest. What a lot of establishment types want out of FB is just censoring their political opponents harder. This business about algorithmic manipulation, once you pierce a few levels of narrative, is about only that: the establishment is pissed that FB's engagement algorithm is showing people things that the kind of person who edits major newspaper pages doesn't want the general public to see. We live in on…

> This is a second Reformation, and all the seriously-worded editorials about the dangers of FB misinformation are just priests annoyed that regular people can now read the Bible in the vernacular. Everything old is new again.

On the surface this feels like a neat observation, but I think it's very poor because it completely ignores the incentive structures. Those publishing the vernacular during the times of the printing press had no incentive to publish the craziest possible stuff because of an algorithm that artificially promoted scrolls based on the number of things people said about them, positive or negative. The "strongly-worded editorials" are completely justified in criticizing this system as a deliverer of news over traditional journalism.

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

#620

Post by whimsicalism » Tue, Oct 05, 2021, 7:01 PM UTC

AlexandrB wrote: post #535

whimsicalism wrote: post #409

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 incentiv…

> 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".

The real difference is that there were far fewer people using the internet then and the average person using the blogosphere was more intelligent and thoughtful than the average person using FB.

You might not feel this way, but reverting back to blogs puts a considerable impediment in the way of most people for sharing their own thoughts with their friends and peers.