Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Statement from Mark Zuckerberg

facebook.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 699 posts

Re: Statement from Mark Zuckerberg

#101

Post by kelseyfrog »

jedberg wrote: post #68

I'm having a hard time reconciling all this right now. On the one hand, from the outside, I can see the actions that Facebook takes and they seem awfully guilty of what they are accused of. But on the other hand, I personally know and have previously worked with some of the people who work on trust and safety, specifically for kids. Good people who have kids of their own and who care about protecting people, especial…

It's systems-level thinking applied to people. Reader beware though, once you start down this path, you can become adept at spotting this pattern emerge in many other human systems.

Re: Statement from Mark Zuckerberg

#104

Post by isignal »

throwaway09223 wrote: post #40
DaveSchmindel wrote: post #17

> ...industry-leading... This self-proclaimed adjective was thrown in the mix five separate times within this note in an effort to explain how great the work that FB delivers is (and likely, to imply that the negativity applied to FB in the public eye is unfair). Saying Facebook is "industry-leading" with respect to social media and technology is like saying Priscilla is your favorite wife, dude. Put your money where…

I think you're missing some key nuance. Zuck mentions the research as industry leading because the research has uncovered something deeply embarrassing for Facebook. It's relevant that this is "industry leading" because no one else has done this work. The implication is that the same patterns at Facebook are likely true with other forms of media.

Other researchers don’t have free access to the same data, so their own research is industry leading by default :) Anyway, the term is intended to be used as PR to appeal to the media, I assume, than to be really accurate.

Re: Statement from Mark Zuckerberg

#105

Post by skizm »

hokumguru wrote: post #18

Honestly am I the only one that doesn’t think that Facebook is that bad? Some of those points that he makes really should make you stop and think.

I’m with you. Facebook brings way more good to the world than bad. And the bad it brings is just amplification of what already exists. And with the Internet that amplification will happen with or without facebook.

Also the fact that much of the research / “leaks” are showing most of the issues are only happening in the US is a sort of a glaring hole in most of the arguments being made against FB. The US is just borked at the moment. Everything is red vs blue, and no one even cares what the issues are at this point.

Re: Statement from Mark Zuckerberg

#106

Post by kumarvvr »

skissane wrote: post #73

> And if social media were as responsible for polarizing society as some people claim, then why are we seeing polarization increase in the US while it stays flat or declines in many countries with just as heavy use of social media around the world? That's a point I've made myself before, and I think there is some truth to it. Social media can't explain the high and increasing degree of US political polarisation, beca…

That is because most other countries have multi party systems.

The polarization is still there, but spread thin amongst various factions.

In the US, people are shoehorned into R or D.

Edit : I would also like to point out that the OP is a bit confused between cause and effect. In the US, the effect is deep polarization. However, the cause is the power of mass communication, especially misinformation and blatant lies, that FB enables and does not bother to control. The cause is common to all the countries in the world, the effect varies due to various other factors, one of them being the presence of a multi-party system.

Take the example of India. FB has a large and active user base. However, India being a chaos of various identities, cultures, regions, languages, etc, divisions in society are less pronounced as there are a large number of players (politically, regionally, locally, etc)

Other than that, the effect of FB in Europe is also less visible due to the same reason. Every EU country has mostly multi party systems, leading to spreading thin of the hate and focus.

Re: Statement from Mark Zuckerberg

#107

Post by jedberg »

ziftface wrote: post #94
jedberg wrote: post #68

I'm having a hard time reconciling all this right now. On the one hand, from the outside, I can see the actions that Facebook takes and they seem awfully guilty of what they are accused of. But on the other hand, I personally know and have previously worked with some of the people who work on trust and safety, specifically for kids. Good people who have kids of their own and who care about protecting people, especial…

Don't you think it's more likely that he's just using these projects to garner some goodwill and sympathy?

What I'm saying is that I know people working on this projects, and they are good people who want to make things better. They wouldn't work on these things if they didn't think it made a difference, as they all have plenty of options on other places to work.

Re: Statement from Mark Zuckerberg

#108

Post by timClicks »

slg wrote: post #96
skissane wrote: post #73

> And if social media were as responsible for polarizing society as some people claim, then why are we seeing polarization increase in the US while it stays flat or declines in many countries with just as heavy use of social media around the world? That's a point I've made myself before, and I think there is some truth to it. Social media can't explain the high and increasing degree of US political polarisation, beca…

>The real explanation must lie in other aspects of US culture, or the US political system First-past-the-post voting leads to a two party system which leads to more polarization. If you have multiple political parties, polarization can only go so far because there will be centrist groups working against polarization. In the US, there is no force pushing for centrism.

I thought that a 2 party system means that both parties attempt to occupy the center, because there are so few swing voters.

Re: Statement from Mark Zuckerberg

#109

Post by shamino »

> Similar to balancing other social issues, I don't believe private companies should make all of the decisions on their own.

Then give up majority control.

This article needs a listen in compassion. It's all, "no we're not", instead of, "we understand why people feel this way and this is what we need to do"

Re: Statement from Mark Zuckerberg

#110

Post by jedberg »

BobbyJo wrote: post #91
jedberg wrote: post #68

I'm having a hard time reconciling all this right now. On the one hand, from the outside, I can see the actions that Facebook takes and they seem awfully guilty of what they are accused of. But on the other hand, I personally know and have previously worked with some of the people who work on trust and safety, specifically for kids. Good people who have kids of their own and who care about protecting people, especial…

I don't think it's an emergent property, I think it's a by-product of the constraints. It's all well and good that they want to make Facebook safe and healthy, and I honestly believe plenty of people working there are trying to do just that. However, they are operating under the constraint that they cannot move backwards on profits, and therefore engagement. Imagine if you were trying to fix climate change, but under…

> Imagine if you were trying to fix climate change, but under the condition that you weren't allowed to burn fewer fossil fuels. You may try very hard, and very sincerely, but it's fool's errand.

I like this. This helps me. Thanks.

Post reply on HN