Facebook Whistleblower Leaks Thousands of Pages of Incriminating Internal Docs • Hacker News Board

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

#361

Post by burlesona » Tue, Oct 05, 2021, 7:00 PM UTC

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.

I would ban algorithmic targeted media -- ie no personalized feed based on an "engagement" algorithm, for social media just see a chronological feed of posts from the people you follow. This is the most addictive and radicalizing part of social media - and the most lucrative. Much like the nicotine in Big Tobacco's case.

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

#362

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

bellyfullofbac wrote: post #132

colpabar wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My tinfoil theory about the outage yesterday is that it was done on purpose, as a way to create an opportunity to "hide" as many internal documents as possible without anyone noticing.

First reaction: That really is tinfoil, if you don't include how the outage would help in that process.. Second reaction: Huh, employees were locked out of their offices, VPN was surely down, yeah if there was someone inside the data centre deleting files off their Intranet no one from outside the data centre would be able to notice, due to the lack of connectivity. But it would have to be a very good scrubbing and p…

Man, you could delete random 200 documents I worked on at least 3 months ago and I would only notice if I followed a broken link...

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

#363

Post by chacham15 » Tue, Oct 05, 2021, 7:01 PM UTC

jimkleiber wrote: post #183

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…

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…

> I often see it as written rules (laws) and unwritten rules (ethics).

I think this is a very dangerous line to walk. A common phrase in law is "the law often allows what honor forbids" and that is because there is a difference between the law and ethics and IMO that is a good thing.

Is it ethical to eat all the cookies in the cookie jar and leave none for anyone else? No. Should it be illegal? No.

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

#364

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

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

> fire in a crowded theater being the canonical example

That phrase comes from Schenck v. United States, where the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government could imprison an anti-war activist for disseminating pamphlets.

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

#365

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

chacham15 wrote: post #363

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…

> I often see it as written rules (laws) and unwritten rules (ethics). I think this is a very dangerous line to walk. A common phrase in law is "the law often allows what honor forbids" and that is because there is a difference between the law and ethics and IMO that is a good thing. Is it ethical to eat all the cookies in the cookie jar and leave none for anyone else? No. Should it be illegal? No.

We've slowly seen an alternate interpretation promulgated by many: anything that is not illegal is ethical. The endpoint is practically the same (anything legal is ethical and vice versa) but it arguably makes for a worse society.

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

#366

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

Noumenon72 wrote: post #152

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,…

I've definitely had much darker thoughts after reading a lot of traditional media than looking at Instagram.

This past year, I think immediately back to believing and repeating the grotesque lie that Brian Sicknick had his brains savagely bashed in with a fire extinguisher by Jan 6 rioters. That never happened, but it was major news for a few days. I actually feel a bit violated for believing and repeating something so false.

On the other hand, I haven't had a FB account of any type for over five years, so it hasn't directly affected my personal life.

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

#367

Post by kaibee » Tue, Oct 05, 2021, 7:06 PM UTC

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…

I would also have OP consider that yes, maybe having corporations like Nestle, CocaCola, etc that prioritize profit above all else is, in fact, also bad. Like, lets be real here, if the CEO of Coke had a button that could double the consumption of Coke products in the USA he would definitely push it, despite the fact that hundreds of thousands of people would become more obese and live worse, shorter lives. Advertising is an attempt at such a button.

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

#368

Post by sentinel » Tue, Oct 05, 2021, 7:06 PM UTC

farcebook wrote: post #191

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,…

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…

1. The mainstream news pushed numerous stories over the past years without those rudimentary truthiness checks.

2. I disagree with many points in that paragraph: - echo chambers: when was the last time you heard a nuanced "from the other aisle" opinion from a NYT reader; an opinion that wasn't covered in the NYT. Same echo chamber, just a different format. - news companies are small and irrelevant: Seems like this narrative has captured everybody's imagination today. Everybody is talking about it. It might even lead to action in Congress. Are news companies really that small and irrelevant as you claim them to be?

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

#369

Post by hatenberg » Tue, Oct 05, 2021, 7:06 PM UTC

alistairSH wrote: post #194

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.

What do you want to be done exactly? Public algorithms, or at least some 3rd party review. Ban infinite-scroll on social media platforms. Require feeds to be configurable (users can set to "newest first" or "top picks" or whatever else). I'm sure I could come up with more, that's just off the top of my head.

I’m infinitely scrolling hacker news comments right now. You think adding a next page button is gonna change anything?

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

#370

Post by mcguire » Tue, Oct 05, 2021, 7:06 PM UTC

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,…

I note that the "general American media" is subject to quite a few more constraints than Facebook and others of similar ilk.

At the lowest level, the "general American media" can have advertising pulled if they get too far out of hand. Going further, they have to live with their editorial decisions---see, for example, your own antipathy to them. Ultimately, they can be sued.

Facebook, on the other hand, can offer not to associate someone's advertising with that content, but someone else will surely be happy to fill the spot and FB will be making money on both. Facebook doesn't have to live with its (non-) editorial decisions---that's user generated content, right? And you can't really sue Facebook either.

The bar has never been equal, but not in the way you think.