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

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

#391

Post by mcguire » Tue, Oct 05, 2021, 7:15 PM UTC

dado3212 wrote: post #359

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…

The vast majority of what you could call disinformation is directly downstream of mainstream media sources. FB is a platform: the content has to come from somewhere, and it’s usually downstream of these news companies. Should FB be banning Fox and MSNBC? What’s the expectation here?

While "mainstream media" deserves its share of opprobrium, they didn't generate a lot of the "content" shared on Facebook:

https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/2019-02/14/1...

Or if they did, they'd be looking at some consequences.

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

#392

Post by pjc50 » Tue, Oct 05, 2021, 7:16 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.

Should it be subject to social sanction? Yes.

(arguably eating cookies that aren't yours is a crime, and I don't doubt that someone has in the past been arrested for it in ridiculous circumstances)

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

#393

Post by sarkron » Tue, Oct 05, 2021, 7:16 PM UTC

taf2 wrote: post #326

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…

My Mom said it to me with simpler terms when i was little... "we only have laws because of the assholes"

Plato put it like this in his "Laws": “Laws are made to instruct the good, and in the hope that there may be no need of them; also to control the bad, whose hardness of heart will not be hindered from crime.”

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

#394

Post by docmars » Tue, Oct 05, 2021, 7:17 PM UTC

nuerow wrote: post #340

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…

> Walmart is (...) Whataboutism advances no discussion. Either Facebook's problems are discussed based on Facebook's circumstances and decisions and consequences, or we're better off not posting any message at all.

Comparisons, analogies, and metaphors are useful tools to increase understanding and draw parallels to ideas that are challenging to navigate and naturally, lead to a variety of thoughtful outcomes or interpretations.

Crying "whataboutism" is as fruitless as you've described above. It is often used to steer a conversation towards a single direction of bias when those comparisons lead to inconvenient conclusions/possibilities that fall outside of what the person claiming it has accepted. Just sayin'. ;)

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

#395

Post by RandomLensman » Tue, Oct 05, 2021, 7:17 PM UTC

Tamrind7 wrote: post #306

malandrew wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Ads have been around for more than 2000 years now - would need a massive shift in mores to get rid of them (they survive in a lot of very different societies).

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

#396

Post by NomDePlum » Tue, Oct 05, 2021, 7:17 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.

Is it a dangerous line to walk? For who?

FB are involved in unethical practices that whilst not illegal at present are much more consequential than your example.

There are obvious questions here to ask that may lead to new laws being made and perhaps even retrospectively enforced.

Social engineering for profit is a little more serious than who ate the cookies surely?

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

#397

Post by dkarl » Tue, Oct 05, 2021, 7:17 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…

> 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?

Replace mental health with physical health and you have a great argument against how food is produced, marketed, and sold. We tackled these issues first with tobacco, and food wouldn't be a bad place to turn our attention after the social media companies.

Corporations are ruthless, inhuman optimization engines. When we don't sufficiently constrain the problems we ask them to solve, we get grotesque, inhuman solutions, like turning healthy desires into harmful addictions.

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

#398

Post by licebmi__at__ » Tue, Oct 05, 2021, 7:18 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.

If we are trapped somewhere with no other food than the cookie jar, the we will see how long before eating all the cookies is illegal.

Justice is a messy concept because is rooted in specific circumstances, and it’s absurd to think there’s a clear line between what’s unethical and what’s illegal.

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

#399

Post by ENOTTY » Tue, Oct 05, 2021, 7:18 PM UTC

slongfield wrote: post #233

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 section at the end -- "Haugen contacted state officials and the SEC" talks about the parts of the whistleblower documents that show that Facebook was misleading investors. That is criminal under current US law. I think people are more mad about the other things in the documents--most people are more sympathetic to harm done to kids' mental health than to investors' bottom line, but lying to investors is the one t…

This might fall under Matt Levine's theory that "everything is securities fraud"

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

#400

Post by speedybird » Tue, Oct 05, 2021, 7:18 PM UTC

dillondoyle wrote: post #231

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…

I agree with holding all media accountable. But the problem with what you say is that for millions and millions 'news' is actually BS opinion shows. On both sides but from my perspective Fox & Murdoch's empire abroad has done far more harm than say Maddow preaching whatever riles that audience up. The actual press, WaPo, NyTimes (which does great docs, so does Vice imho) have rigid editorial process. Yet I still on H…

> The actual press, WaPo, NyTimes (which does great docs, so does Vice imho) have rigid editorial process.

That hasn't stopped them from publishing complete bullshit to start wars and similarly abominable shit. The New York Times allowed Judith Miller to uncritically publish flagrant government lies to start the Second Iraq War. In the leadup to the First Iraq War, ABC and NBC published atrocity propaganda (the "Nayirah testimony") for the American government. In the 20th century, the New York Times let Walter Duranty publish Stalinist propaganda denying genocidal oppression and famine in Ukraine. In the late 19th century, a bunch of American newspapers were used to start a bullshit war with Spain.