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

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

#631

Post by godelski » Tue, Oct 05, 2021, 7:26 PM UTC

sreque wrote: post #307

godelski wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In American politics, yes. The problem is that both parties when in power have extended the power of authority and none have reduced it. It's been going on for so long that I can't take any conservative that says they vote right to decrease government seriously. It's just a talking point now. No one is going to reduce the government's powers and it's gotten us in trouble already. It's always justified as "well I need…

I actually agree with a lot of what you are saying. Often it feels like it doesn't matter who we vote for: no president ever actually does anything about the ever-expanding big government. I wish we had someone like Senator Rand Paul, but more charismatic, who had a chance of winning the presidency. Say what you will, but that man definitely seems to want to shrink the government.

My problem with the right is that they do shrink the government, but also extend it in other ways. Personally I want an efficient government. I don't think that means slashing programs entirely, like getting rid of the IRS, but rather ensuring that programs don't bloat. They will tend towards that through bureaucracy. As the world becomes more complicated we will need more departments than we needed 100 years ago but we should always be ensuring that these departments don't get bogged down by too much bureaucracy. I feel that the conversation often lacks this notion and focuses on too simplistic of an approach. That's why I don't like people like Rand Paul. He's using a first order approximation which we can tell is not going to be a good enough approximation because he's using the wrong causal variables.

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

#632

Post by RandomLensman » Tue, Oct 05, 2021, 7:30 PM UTC

slg wrote: post #512

RandomLensman wrote: post #486

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe, maybe not. Taking Facebook away might now also act as an accelerant of divisions - hoping for a simple solution might not cut it. Looking at social dynamics coupled with power politics one should always be prepared for really nasty outcomes even on well intentioned actions. If we as society decide that Facebook (and maybe other similar things) are too dangerous to have, lets do that right and not in a fit of a…

That is argument for universal inaction. There is always more research that can be done to study potential outcomes, but eventually action needs to be taken. We are staring at a house fire and at a certain point we need to stop debating the potential water damage and turn on the hoses or the entire house will burn down.

My point is that moral outrage is a dangerous policy vehicle. And in this particular situation I am concerned that we might be looking at the wrong fire - to stay in your picture.

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

#633

Post by streamofdigits » Tue, Oct 05, 2021, 7:38 PM UTC

quotemstr wrote: post #487

streamofdigits wrote: post #462

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dont't disagree with the rule of law (to put it mildly) but not sure this is what is at stake here. Is there something nefarious if society legislates that a (upon closer examination) certain practices that were previously granted tacit or explicit approval are actually undesirable on a forward going basis ?

> Is there something nefarious if society legislates that a (upon closer examination) certain practices that were previously granted tacit or explicit approval are actually undesirable on a forward going basis? No, of course not. But you have to articulate, in detail, what your new prohibitions are. You can't just declare people or organizations bad and punish them on the basis of their being bad without explaining w…

There are people who have done precisely that (to quite excruciating detail I might add :-) with the informed legal and civics background that I could only dream of: Check [0] and her bible. It is calm, meticulous deconstruction of what is happening, why, and why it is wrong.

Forming a consensus (imho this can easily span the traditional political spectrum as it affects literally everybody - its not frequently you get to see the two extremes agree on something) and moving towards a new framework that will sketch "what good looks like" is entirely possible and would come not a moment too early.

The stakes are really high. This is a struggle for democracy, but also for the shape of the future economy. There are many sectors: medical, insurance, finance, education that are looking with disbelief at what is going on. if the political signal is that the Faustian pact of surveillance capitalism is irreversible the ensuing race to the bottom will be the end...

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoshana_Zuboff

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

#634

Post by ta20211004_1 » Tue, Oct 05, 2021, 7:39 PM UTC

haswell wrote: post #606

yodsanklai wrote: post #590

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Big tobacco has caused millions of deaths. I'm yet to see any evidence that FB has caused harm. For instance, do you have data showing that there are more antivaxxers because of FB? Yes, antivaxxers discuss on the platform, so what? they would be discussing in cafes and at family meetings like they've always done. I do believe we need to use social medias with moderation, especially teenagers. However, I really have…

> Big tobacco has caused millions of deaths And if some of the allegations and concerns are correct, the current trajectory companies like Facebook are taking us on are poised to cause far worse. We've already seen Facebook used to facilitate genocide, and there are very concerning trends that indicate it's impacting how entire societies engage each other. It's forcing increased polarization in politics and resulting…

> And if some of the allegations and concerns are correct, the current trajectory companies like Facebook are taking us on are poised to cause far worse. We've already seen Facebook used to facilitate genocide, and there are very concerning trends that indicate it's impacting how entire societies engage each other. It's forcing increased polarization in politics and resulting in extremist candidates.

The Rohingya genocide? While I agree that Facebook does not do enough to moderate content in non English communities, what percentage of the blame do you think Facebook actually deserves here? Recall this genocide was funded and executed by the military of a sovereign state.

It's _forcing_ increased polarization in politics? Be fair. We all have a choice whether or not to engage with content on Facebook, and whether we accept what we see there as truth. Facebook is available in every democracy in the world. In my home country of Canada, we just had a safe and fair election between a reasonable number of moderate parties. We had no insurrection. Many countries are able to do the same. There are a few exceptions.

You're using the term "facilitated" constantly in this post because really all Facebook has done in these cases was serve as a communication medium for blameworthy people with bad ideas. You seem to have no interested in the people who actually _did the things_.

Do you think anything you pointed out here would be difficult to do given any other existing communication medium?

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

#635

Post by wrycoder » Tue, Oct 05, 2021, 7:39 PM UTC

r00fus wrote: post #546

sreque wrote: post #522

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm glad you find me amusing, but I actually agree with you that the concept of power decentralization needs to be applied to corporations as well. I definitely don't claim to have the answers to how to accomplish this, nor did I think the U.S. founders would ever imagine the power that corporations would eventually wield.

Well, perhaps your considerations should take that into account. Many (not all - there are some authoritarian ones) leftists are about seeing the threat to any centralized power. As the saying goes, "power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely". Currently, the USA in an oligarchy and that power is actually vested in corporations who essentially control the government because they've infested all the regulation…

It's great that there's a lot of activism.

But leftists vote Democratic (to the extent they vote for one of the two major parties), and I don't see the Democratic party doing anything whatever to rein in either big government or big business. In fact, these days the Democratic party is the party of big government and the Fortune 500, as is surely obvious.

Lots of activity, but little action forthcoming, I'm afraid.

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

#636

Post by themacguffinman » Tue, Oct 05, 2021, 7:39 PM UTC

m_ke wrote: post #603

themacguffinman wrote: post #499

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, frankly, you couldn't. To start with, the scientific evidence for the medically addictive and harmful properties of nicotine, opiates, and gambling is on a different planet compared to the nebulous correlations and self-reported survey "X% of teens tell us they don't feel good about themselves" results that have been beaten to death about social media. And on the most fundamental level, drugs and gambling provide…

As I understand it the issue is with their recommender system and ad driven business model, not the alt right figures who want to cry about free speech and cancel culture because they can't be racist online while at the same time trying to whipe anything vaguely related to "critical race theory" from existence. The allegations are that Facebook knows that there are people addicted to their products and who have menta…

So what? It's not Facebook's responsibility to do anything about that. There isn't strong evidence that Facebook is uniquely addictive and harmful to the extent that it requires state intervention. Beyond that, this is just you judging the choices of others.

We don't ask profit-driven porn studios/websites to regulate what porn they produce/show because some people get "addicted" to porn in the sense that they won't live without it. We don't ask Pizza Hut to regulate who they sell and advertise pizza to because they know some people won't live without unhealthy pizza. We don't even ask alcohol stores to avoid selling to alcoholics. Any recreational or enjoyable activity will have people who won't live without it even if it makes them feel bad or has some other costs. In a free society, people still choose for themselves and are responsible for the results of their own choices.

If you have strong evidence that Facebook is uniquely addictive and harmful, present it. Otherwise, stop trying to control my ability to engage in ad-driven social media. I don't care what you think is good or bad speech or whether companies profit from it.

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

#637

Post by handrous » Tue, Oct 05, 2021, 7:41 PM UTC

inanutshellus wrote: post #610

teucris wrote: post #589

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Clarification: I agree fatalism is bad, but that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t have a conversation around the rest of the comment.

The fatalist comment from GP distracted entirely from the value-add content and I added to that distraction. Blurg. :-\

Sorry y'all. I am prone to thinking technological determinism's more right than not, and to seeing the stable outcome of "games" as inevitable unless the terms of the games themselves can be altered, and there's usually not much interest in doing that. Maybe that makes me part of the problem, but I'm pretty sure nothing in the actual world would change if I flipped around to a "we can, actually, realistically, fix this" attitude. Realistically, I'm not going to throw the significant resources behind anything that'd be required to have slightly-better-than-winning-the-Powerball odds of making an actual difference, which makes me the same as 99.999% of people, at least. I ain't rich enough to pay others to care about and work toward the causes I'd support in my place, to a degree that it'd actually affect anything, so that'd mostly be lots and lots of actual hours of my life, for a ticket at a slim chance of anything getting better.

Nah. Donate a little to charity while knowing it's not enough to do much. Vote when I manage to forget that the world in which I did vote and the one in which I didn't are identical aside from that I "get to" complain about non-voters and tell them they don't get to have opinions, in one of them. That's it.

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

#638

Post by godelski » Tue, Oct 05, 2021, 7:42 PM UTC

ddoolin wrote: post #320

godelski wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In American politics, yes. The problem is that both parties when in power have extended the power of authority and none have reduced it. It's been going on for so long that I can't take any conservative that says they vote right to decrease government seriously. It's just a talking point now. No one is going to reduce the government's powers and it's gotten us in trouble already. It's always justified as "well I need…

This is just not true: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/21/us/politics/trump-democra... I don't think you're wrong but by the same token, more gov't overreach is really the Democratic platform and that is not a secret.

This isn't entirely true. While the Reps slash some programs they also extend others and extend the executive power. The only difference between them and the Dems is that, as you said, the Dems are open about their power grabs.

I do think we have to stop talking as if we criticize one side that it implies we align with the other. We should be criticizing all those that hold power. I believe a major problem we are facing today is that we're lacking critique of the parties we affiliate with and justify bad actions with "we need this to defeat the other party who isn't playing fair." There is no "for the greater good" in this. That's why the powers are extending in the first place.

I think saying "left" or "right" is too simplistic of a notion and that we're getting too caught up in labels. Labels are just hints, but we're not using them as hints.

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

#639

Post by fzzzy » Tue, Oct 05, 2021, 7:49 PM UTC

slg wrote: post #595

Noos wrote: post #520

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not fixing facebook. No one was saying "fix facebook" when Barack Obama was praised for using it and it was part of his strategy to win. For example: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/feb/17/obama-digital-... The "facebook is bad" started happening when Trump won, imo. Essentially the establishment on both sides realized that it could also be used against them as much as for them. It feels similar to AM rad…

Facebook was much smaller during Obama's election wins. It also hadn't even moved off the chronological feed at the time he was first elected. Returning back to that type of feed with no boosting content for virality or engagement would do a lot to "fix Facebook". Also it is worth noting that Obama's campaign was largely based off positive emotions like hope and change while Trumps was largely based off negative emot…

Returning Facebook and Twitter to the chronological feed is the solution, imo. I'm not sure how these companies think they can get away with algorithmic feeds and still expect section 230 protection.

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

#640

Post by handrous » Tue, Oct 05, 2021, 7:52 PM UTC

NoGravitas wrote: post #626

handrous wrote: post #569

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yes; another way of looking at it is that the US government represents the "dictatorship of Capital". When you consider that the driving question of the conflict behind the American War for Independence, and so essentially the founding idea of our state, was, "should aristocrats have most of the political power, or should rich businessmen have most of the political power?" this is what one would expect, really.

I mean, the bourgeois revolutions were progressive in the context of their time.

True. And some of the US founders seem to have genuinely believed that having money was a nice, legible, reasonably accurate proxy for merit & general fitness, and so, that they were founding a meritocracy. It's not as if everyone was setting out to do something bad, or even that, in the context of the time, what they did was particularly bad.