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

471–480 of 734 posts

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

#471

Post by asdff »

ethbr0 wrote: post #276
asdff wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Curious, do you not wear seatbelts too? Opt for asbestos insulation since its better than anything on the market today? Plumb your home with lead since its more durable and flexible? Use leaded gas because its better for your older engine? The state acts on the collective when the public is not making good decisions for themselves and causing net harm onto themselves, usually with the public paying the price. Sometim…

As another example: - The US prohibits people under 21 years old from buying alcohol, and allows those over 21 to do so. - The US prohibits anyone of any age from driving a motor vehicle over a certain blood alcohol level. This is something which causes health and community harm (alcohol), which we have allowed and denied to people in certain ways. And honestly, I think struck a fair balance between individual libert…

Not only the age restriction but there are restrictions meant to curb some abuse at least. Drunk in public is a crime, establishments technically aren't allowed to overserve patrons who are very drunk, you can get tried for manslaughter worst case if you force someone to overconsume and they die, etc.

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

#472

Post by josephg »

satellite2 wrote: post #444
chacham15 wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Isn't the cookie jar an alegory of the commons? And as such shouldn't it be forbiden to shit in the cookie jar? I had the impression that it was how the story ended when we talked about cookies, but maybe I didn't get the memo.

The point is that being forbidden and being illegal are different ideas. It’s bad for society to codify too much behaviour in law. Knowing the law is no substitute for knowing the difference between right and wrong.

Regulating Facebook is a great example. Congress could easily react to facebook’s indiscretions by passing new laws here which stifle innovation.

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

#473

Post by satellite2 »

freeopinion wrote: post #442
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…

> Facebook [clipped] are fully responsible for what you consume. I'm not sure how deeply you hold this belief, but I am concerned to see so many people push all blame from their own actions. While it may be true that Facebook is largely responsible for what is consumed * on Facebook *, individuals are largely responsible for consuming Facebook.

I think they do. When you only see post about how vaccine cause autism, anectode about this and that person and the diseases they got from the vaccine and that on top of that the vaccine doesn't even prevent the disease it was designed against, then it becomes reasonable to become antivax.

And if effectively Facebook knowingly choose, through their algorithm parameters selection, to promote this material as it increases engagement more than reasonable content, then yes, I think they should at least be partly held responsible for the harm caused by the anti vaccine movement.

And this is only one example.

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

#474

Post by jasondigitized »

afavour wrote: post #210
jasondigitized wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What will you see? 24-7, Emotionally charged "Breaking News" which is simply a different fruit from the same horrible tree. CNN and Fox News are just using different methods based on the data they have available which comes from focus groups, Nielsen, and a whole cottage industry that most people are unaware of.

> What will you see? 24-7, Emotionally charged "Breaking News" which is simply a different fruit from the same horrible tree. Right, but we know what they are showing people . We have no idea what Facebook is showing people. There's no equivalence there. Yes, both are bad, but in the context of these leaks equating Facebook to CNN is delusional deflection.

It’s not deflection. You are pointing out magnification. It’s the same concept. Facebook just has far greater granularity in their ability to target and deliver personalized content. CNN and Fox News is still segmenting content and targeting users. That’s why they can both coexist. I am not arguing that Facebook isn’t far more sophisticated. Newspapers < CNN < CNN.com < Facebook.

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

#475

Post by koonsolo »

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"

Same with contracts: you only need them when things go bad.

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

#476

Post by parineum »

oarabbus_ wrote: post #455
parineum wrote: post #411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Tobacco and alcohol cause measurable societal harm And if I choose to smoke in the privacy of my own home (or yard)? What societal harm am I causing? As for alcohol, the societal harm caused is a laundry list of already illegal behaviors that are illegal regardless of alcohol's involvement with the exception of sin tax avoidance. Why not outlaw the societal harm instead? > e.g. an alcohol excise tax going towards r…

>Why not outlaw the societal harm instead? Weren't you just saying how you don't want the state legislating what you put in your body and mind? That's why.

I want the state to not outlaw hurting myself when it doesn't hurt others. The state's role is to prevent individuals from hurting others.

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

#477

Post by danShumway »

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

The Supreme Court only upheld the fairness doctrine in situations where spectrum was limited (Red Lion Broadcasting vs FCC). Even at the time the fairness doctrine wasn't really applicable to mediums in which bandwidth/spectrum is not limited and not licensed to specific broadcasters.

It's not clear to me how this kind of regulation would be justified to the Supreme Court in regards to the Internet.

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

#478

Post by laurent92 »

ayngg wrote: post #423
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…

One fairly common pattern seen is that companies develop in a nascent space where there were few rules and were therefore able to basically outrun regulation/ the law that moves very slowly. When that regulation eventually comes it ends up solidifying the monopolistic advantage by essentially creating a moat and closing the door on practices that helped create such growth in the first place. I think when stakes are t…

What would a developed civilization do? I doubt we would be able to prevent the “bubble up and close the door” behavior, so should it also ensure that corporations are regularly rotated (ie dismantled for others to take the space) so only those which can succeed fairly in the current law framework would survive?

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

#479

Post by chasd00 »

mrweasel wrote: post #150
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…

Facebook may not be doing anything illegal, but it is immoral. While morality is subjective, and not enforceable, the public needs to know what is happening, so they can make their mind about supporting a given company.

i agree, legislating morality has never worked. However, legislation to inform the consumer has worked.

Social media should be forced to inform the consumer when/how they're being targeted. When a user is shown 15 pieces of content it should be crystal clear the platform is trying to tease out an emotional response from them and not just showing them their friend's posts. Maybe a warning label like "This content was algorithmically curated to elicit the maximum emotional response from you".

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

#480

Post by SuoDuanDao »

chmsky00 wrote: post #454
sarkron wrote: post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.”

I wonder how he’d speak of a supposedly even better educated society stealing the future of the next due to circular validation of our waste filled industrialism.

Given that most Greeks of that era believed they lived after the decline of a golden age, I suspect he might be be more understanding than most people today.
Post reply on HN