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

621–630 of 734 posts

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

#621

Post by mullingitover »

quotemstr wrote: post #619
mullingitover wrote: post #616

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Who gets to decide what algorithms are simple enough to be legal? You? Why? I'm not talking about the legality, I'm talking about the liability. If one user posts defamatory/libelous speech and Facebook decides to blast it to 1 billion users because their secret sauce algorithm found that it really cranks the revenue dial, Facebook should share some culpability in that defamation lawsuit. A basic 'hot' algorithm th…

> basic 'hot' algorithm that's not designed by squadrons of PhDs running machine learning on user behavior analysis isn't really the same thing, culpability-wise, imho A "hot" algorithm can blast high engagement libel in front of people as well as a fancy algorithm. If the "hot" algorithm and the fancier algorithm are both content neutral, on what basis can you distinguish the two as a matter of law? Does the hot alg…

You keep putting words in my mouth, I'm not saying anything about outlawing anything, just assigning liability.

> Your post, like many others on this thread, isn't articulating exactly what about FB's conduct you find objectionable?

The objectionable conduct is pretty thoroughly covered in the article, but to review:

> "Facebook over and over again has shown it chooses profit over safety"

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

#622

Post by aylmao »

koheripbal wrote: post #131
aardvarkr wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's your point here? This lady is a PRODUCT manger and heads up the entire product, in this case Civic Integrity, which was directly charged with tamping down hate on the platform related to civic engagement. She is not a PROJECT manager like what you deal with on your engineering team. She is by definition an expert on this segment of Facebook and you're dismissing her wrongly for being a "PM". She's a Harvard MB…

The issue is that her experience at Facebook did not put her in a position know the company strategy.

Company strategy isn't only what C-level execs chat about behind closed doors. It's also the prioritization strategy that drives decisions throughout every level of the company.

Facebook focuses on "impact". Any engineer, be they veterans or just 6 months in, can tell you priority is always given to projects that drive "core" metrics up, and projects that dip metrics get axed.

If this simple decision-making strategy is what makes and beaks teams, what decides who is successful and who falls behind, and ultimately what gets built and what doesn't, it drives the company. And it's something any employee at any level knows.

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

#623

Post by decebalus1 »

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 Facebook just don’t use Facebook, WhatsApp, or Instagram.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-46105934

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

#624

Post by quotemstr »

mullingitover wrote: post #621
quotemstr wrote: post #619

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> basic 'hot' algorithm that's not designed by squadrons of PhDs running machine learning on user behavior analysis isn't really the same thing, culpability-wise, imho A "hot" algorithm can blast high engagement libel in front of people as well as a fancy algorithm. If the "hot" algorithm and the fancier algorithm are both content neutral, on what basis can you distinguish the two as a matter of law? Does the hot alg…

You keep putting words in my mouth, I'm not saying anything about outlawing anything, just assigning liability. > Your post, like many others on this thread, isn't articulating exactly what about FB's conduct you find objectionable? The objectionable conduct is pretty thoroughly covered in the article, but to review: > "Facebook over and over again has shown it chooses profit over safety"

Illegal, liable, doesn't matter --- you want to use the state to drive certain kinds of ranking off the internet.

Fine. What, precisely, is the line between algorithms acceptable to you and algorithms not?

What is the precise conduct that would make liability attach to a ranking algorithm? You can emote, but you can't describe what exactly it is you would turn into a law.

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

#625

Post by dandotway »

mrep wrote: post #259
parineum wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> sin taxes How about we don't let the state decide what I get to do with my body (and mind)?

For everyone responding that smokers cost the government money, it is actually the opposite in that they save the government money because on average they die sooner. From the manning study: "In this analysis, the federal government saves about $29 billion per year in net health and retirement costs (accounting for effects on tax payments). These include a saving in retirement (largely social security benefits) of ab…

Presumably COVID also saves the government money, then? It mostly kills the old who have already paid into the tax system their whole working lives and are now drawing from it. And it mostly kills the chronically ill who need more tax support than they contribute. It seems terribly cold and callous to look at it this way though, e.g. when a son is holding his mom's hand in the hospital who is dying of lung cancer, to go up to the son and tap his shoulder and whisper, "Hey kid, cheer up, uncle Sam saved $8 bil on medicaid nursing home costs 'cus mommy here couldn't stop sucking nicotine sticks."

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

#626

Post by sumedh »

mpalczewski wrote: post #243
hunterb123 wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point was a cig always causes cancer because it burns tobacco, so you need a banner to warn users. A social media behemoth does not need to use doom scrolling or private algorithms to be a social media site.

Smoking was happening in the 1800's. Lung Cancer rates didn't shoot up until the 1900's, it was rather rare. This is around the same time that tobacco companies figured out they could soak tobacco in ammonia. This allowed for inhalation into the lungs (e.g. it sucks to inflate a cigar deep into your lungs). It also made the cigarettes much more addicting, so people smoked way more and inhaled into the lungs. That's a…

> Smoking was happening in the 1800's. Lung Cancer rates didn't shoot up until the 1900's,

Were they even looking for lung cancers when people died back in 1800's?

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

#627

Post by sumedh »

pangolinplayer wrote: post #533
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…

If Congress invites you to speak without fear of arrest and the main stream media hold you up as a darling then you are NOT a whistleblower. You are doing the bidding of power... If you are exiled to Russia (Snowden) or locked up without trial like Assange THEN you are whistlw blower and dangerous to power. This chick is a shill

whistleblower : a person who informs on a person or organisation regarded as engaging in an unlawful or immoral activity.

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

#628

Post by ashtonkem »

fighterpilot wrote: post #590
ashtonkem wrote: post #542

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I’m strongly inclined to disagree. I generally find that the best way to prevent an organization from abusing its power is to deny it power.

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

#629

Post by fighterpilot »

ashtonkem wrote: post #628
fighterpilot wrote: post #590

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I’m strongly inclined to disagree. I generally find that the best way to prevent an organization from abusing its power is to deny it power.

If we split insta from FB, what incentives change that will cause a change in behavior?

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

#630

Post by meowface »

I'd like it if he at least addressed the real criticisms face-on instead of at a glance:

>The argument that we deliberately push content that makes people angry for profit is deeply illogical. We make money from ads, and advertisers consistently tell us they don't want their ads next to harmful or angry content. And I don't know any tech company that sets out to build products that make people angry or depressed. The moral, business and product incentives all point in the opposite direction.

The actual argument is that companies like Facebook make money by increasing user engagement and that polarizing and outrage-inducing content is one way to effectively increase engagement (be it deliberate or recommender algorithms simply discovering on their own that this kind of content is effective for engagement).

He also glides over the issue of incentives and the algorithmic aspect. Simply saying "no tech company sets out to make people angry or depressed" is a truism that has no bearing on the argument. Of course their end goal isn't to make people angry or depressed. But is it an instrumental goal? Is it an unintended consequence that they nevertheless find useful, or at least find it too profitable and difficult invest 100% of their effort into mitigating it when it happens?

This is the kind of vague, wishy-washy, feel-good politics/CEO-speak that everyone hates. It's inauthentic and calculated. Have a genuine, honest, PR/lawyer handler-free discussion about this in public and then maybe a few people can at least try to throw your behemoth of a quasi-nation-state a tiny bit of the benefit of the doubt. With this kind of defensive, political approach, you'll do nothing but lose even more of the sympathy you're already so bereft of.

Post reply on HN