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

341–350 of 734 posts

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

#341

Post by h2odragon »

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,…

Facebook gets to say "its the users being polarizing"; where traditional media gets to enjoy libel and slander laws.

If Facebook's editorial decisions rendered them subject to those laws, would that be equal enough?

There are answers to this question that do not easily summarize as "we need more rules about who gets to say what". We gots plenty of rules. Let's apply them fairly and equally for once.

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

#342

Post by fullshark »

mdoms wrote: post #204

Am I the only one who found the Facebook Files reporting very overwrought and stretched? There were some issues and red flags in there, but mostly it seemed... not that bad?

Appears to be the emerging consensus at least at hacker news.

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

#343

Post by riffic »

n8cpdx wrote: post #327
philwelch wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The elephant in the room here is the First Amendment. The government, legally, cannot do anything to censor "hate speech" or "misinformation" on CNN or Fox News. They also can't do anything to censor "hate speech" or "misinformation" on Facebook, but they can certainly harass Facebook into doing it for them.

Not completely true. Historically mass media was regulated. Lying also isn't legally protected if it causes injury (fire in a crowded theater being the canonical example, libel another). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine

well, the airwaves (which is where the FCC fairness doctrine was applied to) are a limited resource which, without regulation, become quickly polluted by bad actors.

print and cable are somewhat more immune to that particular issue.

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

#344

Post by sul_tasto »

vladd wrote: post #296
finfinfin wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 respon…

Walmart is "manipulating" the placement of products on the shelf so that it's more likely for you to engage in bulk buying when you visit their stores. Both Facebook and Walmart have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders to create value for them. The difference is that, with user generated content, the idea of black and white "bounds" of the law is no longer applicable and you have to devise a system of checks and b…

Walmart doesn’t stock land mines, rocket launchers, anthrax, or many other items harmful to democracy and society on its shelves, even though I’m sure it could make a lot of money selling such items.

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

#345

Post by bbarn »

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.

There are places in the world where these services are the only option if you wish to engage in the US equivalent of simple text messaging. I have been "that guy" that doesn't want to use the platform the rest of the social group uses, and it sucks.

Is it so much to ask for honesty from a company these days?

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

#346

Post by Steltek »

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.

Pardon but network effect much? In my area, FB is a huge resource for community groups and news. It would probably make local parent life more difficult to unilaterally cut off FB.

It's a good market opportunity actually. Too bad NextDoor is basically known as "racist people alerting their neighbors that a black person is out walking their dog" or some nonsense.

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

#347

Post by vladd »

finfinfin wrote: post #319
vladd wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Walmart is "manipulating" the placement of products on the shelf so that it's more likely for you to engage in bulk buying when you visit their stores. Both Facebook and Walmart have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders to create value for them. The difference is that, with user generated content, the idea of black and white "bounds" of the law is no longer applicable and you have to devise a system of checks and b…

I am baffled by this display of lack of ethics. Do we need a Walmart comparison to put Facebook’s action in perspective? Facebook - by its own acknowledgement - negatively affects teenage mental health and the democratic processes in many countries. Do you see how different this is from selling more mayonnaise jars in Walmart? Facebook doesn’t have a duty to manipulate content. This is a very weak excuse that works m…

The following has been used for sure in order to commit crimes and fiddle with democracy: Verizon phone conversations, Gmail discussions, Twitter, Snapchat or Tiktok messages etc.

Nobody wakes up and says "let's be unethical today", but rather, it's the reality of life with user generated content platforms, that either you get both outcomes, or you get none.

The discussion is about making people realize that the "technology" to keep only the good parts (without the downsides) wasn't invented yet.

Hence we're in a position to argue whether it would be more ethical to shutdown / censor everything, or have fruitful discussions on how to emphasize the good outcomes over the bad ones with the current tech (by first understanding it, something that politicians seem to be very bad at, or show little interest in it compared to the negative FB sentiment engagement they're generating in their voters -- ironic :) ).

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

#348

Post by sizzle »

vincent_waters wrote: post #289

What is "incriminating"? It is legal to remove protected speech, but it's not illegal to not remove it. COVID and election "misinformation" are, for the most part, protected. In fact, the actual headline is just "Facebook's new whistleblower is renewing scrutiny of the social media giant," with no mention of incrimination. The Hacker News version of the headline is misinformation.

She leaked info to the SEC about Facebook materially misleading shareholders and investors, which is illegal. Reread the full article till the end.

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

#349

Post by notacoward »

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.

"If you don't like vaccines..."

At first I thought that was a bit too facile, they have nothing to do with each other, but ... is that true? Other people using Facebook to spread hate and misinformation (including vaccine misinformation) does affect me. They affect who gets elected (or appointed) and what policies get enacted. We're already seeing real tangible effects at the state level, and with the 2022 elections we might see more at the federal level. (That's just the US. The same is absolutely true elsewhere, but it's harder for me to come up with examples that are both accurate and familiar to most readers.) In the sense that they both affect public health - political/economic/social in one case, physical in another - hate/misinformation and vaccine refusal are similar. And for the same reasons, "if you don't like..." is an unhelpful response.

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

#350

Post by PragmaticPulp »

siruncledrew wrote: post #119

I don't care about Facebook, and am not interested in using it, but after reading the spiral of consequences Facebook has been in, it made me think: 1. To all the governments that want to tighten more control on communication, this is great kindling to show people "we the government should further control tech for your own good". 2. You can hardly get the US gov to agree on anything, but when it's about hating each o…

> 1. To all the governments that want to tighten more control on communication, this is great kindling to show people "we the government should further control tech for your own good".

I'm genuinely shocked that the popular sentiment on HN leans toward more government intervention and control of internet communications. So many comments here are calling for more laws and regulation, but few people can even begin to elaborate what they want those laws to do.

If laws are passed, they won't be targeted at a specific company, nor will they be limited to specific bad actors on Facebook. There is no magic law that makes all of the bad parts of the internet disappear without also having some chilling effects on the part of the internet that you actually like. If anything, large incumbents like Facebook tend to come out ahead of the smaller companies when onerous regulations are put in place.

Post reply on HN