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

581–590 of 734 posts

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

#581

Post by gorwell »

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 agree, and further it smacks of Manufactured Consent. First, notice the surge in specifically anti-facebook stories over the past month.

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=pastMonth&page=0&prefix=fa...

While twitter and the corporate media are largely absent from the same scrutiny, as you note. They are just as responsible for eroding democratic norms, eroding trust and whipping up the public into a frothing, misinformed rage.

Now this culminates with an impeccably credentialed, rich, Harvard elite `whistleblower` who is largely repeating what we've long known? And who just started a twitter account and web site while on a whirlwind tour. And who is roundly supported by the corporate media and government. This doesn't strike me as speaking truth to power. It's the opposite.

Contrast with Snowden, who came out with new revelations and knowingly took on a great amount of risk to do so. There was no anti-NSA media surge leading up to his appearance. He was not embraced by the ruling class. Rather he infuriated them. That is speaking truth to power.

What we are seeing is the ruling class desperately trying to reassert control over the flow of information. Using facebook as a mechanism to take back control is smart, clearly. Both sides of the aisle want to regulate them. Mark is not a sympathetic character. People want to see a powerful corporation and CEO finally get more than a slap on the wrist. We thirst for a hanging. It appears they are going to give it to us, but I fear we will regret it in the end. As the response will reach far beyond the walls of facebook.

To understand the dynamic we are seeing play out, the book `Revolt of the Public` is worth reading.

“All over the world, elite institutions from governments to media to academia are losing their authority and monopoly control of information to dynamic amateurs and the broader public. This book, until now only in samizdat (and Kindle) form, has been my #1 handout for the last several years to anyone seeking to understand this unfolding shift in power from hierarchies to networks in the age of the Internet.” --Marc Andreessen

https://www.amazon.com/Revolt-Public-Crisis-Authority-Millen...

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

#582

Post by munk-a »

SllX wrote: post #575
munk-a wrote: post #505

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's say that if there are two or more cookies in the jar every morning I add another one to it - under that scenario (especially if we go so far as to say cookies reproduce at some fixed proportion) then yea - it's totally illegal to eat all the cookies. The most common example of this tragedy of the commons is fishing but it happens all over the place. Specifically on the topic of cookies - it honestly is "forbidd…

Illegal isn’t just another word for “forbidden” and the Law isn’t just another word for “the rules”, particularly in the context of this larger discussion on Facebook’s actions. Your parents can punish you for eating all the cookies but the government will not sanction you nor them for doing so (even if a hypothetical and tyrannical government in theory could; maybe let’s not theorycraft absurd ordinances).

The issue for me with this scenario is that it's already so contrived that yea - of course you're not going to be arrested for eating all the cookies from the cookie jar. But only for that action - if you scale that action up to a significant level then you absolutely might be breaking a law. There are lots of things that are legal (or at least looked the other way at) on certain small scales and a lot of penalties escalate with the severity of the offense. If the US had a $1B jar of cookies and you ate all of them (aside from now being diabetic) the government would definitely pursue you for theft.

I suppose that's the truth of the matter - it actually might be illegal to eat all the cookies in the cookie jar (assuming you're not given express permission to do so) it's just that nobody cares because of the scale of the action. It's also usually a domestic affair - but just because you live in the same house as someone else you don't have a right to all their things (it's just that usually all the people are in a family and then property laws get a bit weird).

If your roomate in college had some super rare cookies valued at $10k and you ate all of them then they'd definitely be able to take you to court. It's just that nobody cares if an oreo goes missing.

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

#583

Post by quotemstr »

mullingitover wrote: post #569
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.

> I would rather take the stance of feed algorithms and moderation logs be PUBLICLY available. Transparency instead of censorship. I think that removing CDA Sec 230 protections for algorithmically-curated feeds is the answer. It's one thing to have a basic FIFO feed, it's another to hide or reveal content based on your own internal engagement/revenue targets. At the point where you're crafting bespoke engagement-maxi…

Your proposal would make HN-style comment ranking illegal. Do you really want to live in the world you propose?

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

#584

Post by mckirk »

MetaWhirledPeas wrote: post #213
mckirk wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The gaming industry would like to have a word... In a sense, companies are right now incentived to develop the most effective 'digital crack', because anything that hijacks the reward pathway of the brain more effectively leads to more profit. It'll be quite interesting to see how the public discourse around this will progress, since digital entertainment isn't as easy to publicly mark as 'bad' as drugs were. On the…

> The gaming industry would like to have a word And I would like to have a word with them. They've been given free reign to turn our kids into absolute digital junkies (this is coming from a self-diagnosed sometimes-addict who realizes these kids are on another level ), deliberately dangling carrots that reward 24/7 engagement in the activity. > digital entertainment isn't as easy to publicly mark as 'bad' as drugs w…

I agree completely. I've had the chance to slowly grow up with video games and witness their evolution, and still it's really hard to withdraw myself from the allure of 'just one more round of Apex Legends' and the like. And why should I try so hard, they are great games, after all!

It's decades of development in 'addictiveness tuning' unleashed upon the brain as a stationary target... I really feel sorry for the kids that never knew anything else.

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

#585

Post by josephg »

munk-a wrote: post #502
josephg wrote: post #472

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> It’s bad for society to codify too much behaviour in law. The issue with over-codification is one of the complexity in the laws that result - not that a large number of prohibitions is actually damaging to society. If too many laws exist then enforcement becomes intractable, arbitrary and unjust - but if enforcement could be sanely and fairly dealt out then there are lots of things that we'd appreciate being laws -…

> if enforcement could be sanely and fairly dealt out then there are lots of things that we'd appreciate being laws

I'm hearing a hypothesis - that if enforcement was cheap and easy, we could make a better legal system (and a better society) by regulating far more human interaction. Presumably we'd have AI systems monitoring everyone at all times, and issuing automatic fines if you snipe someone's parking spot.

"Citizen #421 you have been found guilty by AI of the crimes of eating the last cookie, and failing to call your mother while overseas. Please proceed immediately to the nearest reeducation facility for behavior correction"

I agree that there is often marginal (and proximate) benefit in having more laws. I'm in favor of FB being regulated somehow. But my point is that more laws - even when restricting antisocial behaviour - can still create a worse society. The reason is not just because enforcement is arbitrary.

Another example of this is the controversial Canadian bill C16, which sought to make it essentially illegal to misgender someone. Critics of the bill argued that despite everyone agreeing that its extremely disrespectful to misgender someone, it still shouldn't be illegal. This is a subtle argument, but its an important one if we want our societies to stay free and healthy.

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

#586

Post by khazhoux »

I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that all successful online sites are damaging to mental health, and have destroyed our collective attention spans, if nothing else. What sets FB apart is simply that it holds the top spot.

Cut off FB's dopamine dispenser, and people will just rush to the next one over. And so on and so forth.

Even Hacker News... I refresh front page several times a day, looking for another hour I can throw away in my short life, making comments like this that I will then check every hour to see how many upvotes I got from total strangers.

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

#587

Post by ipaddr »

asdff wrote: post #115
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.

Treat addictive social media companies like addictive cigarette companies. Lets see some huge warning labels about how mentally harmful it is to continue scrolling on facebook right on the first result where its unavoidable to see. Lets tax the hell out of social media companies to generate local revenue just like sin taxes. It won't be a huge change but it will be a great starting point and will come with revenue th…

I would like to see this on coke, pepsi, fast food and air travel

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

#588

Post by unethical_ban »

lr4444lr wrote: post #518
unethical_ban wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We haven't banned cigarettes or alcohol, but we have put labels, restrictions and public ad campaigns into place to govern the behavior of their sellers, and to inform the public of their dangers. I think it is a terrible place where government does not have a responsibility, as the union of the people, to help inform citizens of the dangers of addictive products and to regulate unethical behavior of the sellers of s…

There is no amount of tobacco, and probably no amount of alcohol, that has any health benefits. It's completely toxic. What you're advocating is more like suggesting we might also consider putting labels on cheese about the risk of eating too much saturated fat, or heck, a warning on most green vegetables for people taking Coumadin and other blood thinners. The warning labels anyway are not placed on these things you…

Please cite the health benefits of doomscrolling twitter, playing candy crush for hours, etc. etc.

If it is proven that these companies have internal research acknowledging negative psychological effects of this addictive behavior, and ignored it and the widespread social damage it does (the social media specifically, not candy crush), then it would be as big a bombshell as the tobacco industry in the 2000s.

So I disagree on your distinction in the first line.

I would use the example of putting warning labels on sugary foods and soda more than I would about cheese.

Why? Because I disagree with your final line, too. Cigarettes wouldn't be such a problem if they weren't proven to be addictive. It's precisely because they are so habit forming and unhealthy that warnings are necessary.

TLDR: The thesis here is that Facebook has internal documents acknowledging that the system they have created has negative psychological and societal consequences, they know it, and choose to obfuscate it rather than eliminate it.

As more information comes out, it doesn't seem unreasonable for governments to step in and at least have public awareness campaigns on the dangers of social media overuse. It will be tough because it's not as clean cut as "this is your brain on drugs", but it is necessary.

And finally... I don't know how we do it as easily with traditional media, but we collectively have to recognize the patterns of rage-bait and journalistic malfeasance that cable news is the leader in committing, especially Fox. The more traditional "news" label being applied to them, government intervention is a much trickier thing, so it may be more wise to come at it from a different angle.

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

#589

Post by Uhhrrr »

015a wrote: post #311
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 Oxycontin, just don't use Oxycontin, Dilaudid, or Fentanyl. Don't know why so many people here think adults are not capable of regulating themselves.

I have actually done this, and it works great! Would recommend.

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

#590

Post by fighterpilot »

ashtonkem wrote: post #542
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.

Breaking up Facebook would probably be the way to go; it has less troubling side effects than trying to regulate “hate speech” via a clever legal trick.

The leaker herself says breaking up FB won't solve anything and what's needed is far more resources internally
Post reply on HN